After the beauty parade punters make Cleverly the coming man – politicalbetting.com

System · October 2

After the beauty parade punters make Cleverly the coming man – politicalbetting.com

After the final four made their speeches today Kemi Badenoch continues her collapse in the betting market whilst James Cleverly has surged.

Read the full story here

Driver · October 2

First like Cleverly?

FF43 · October 2

If I were candidate for Leader of Opposition my pitch would be:

- Sort out the Party organisation, operations and finances
- Take advantage of our time in opposition to reset our direction and have a wider discussion about where we want to go as a party.
- Prepare ourselves so we're in the best possible shape for when the Government calls the next election.

But what would I know? No-one in the Conservative Party thinks any of this is necessary.

Stark_Dawning · October 2

The Tories' problem is that the right-wing media and pundits were absolutely yearning for Kemi. This means that if she doesn't get it they're be disheartened and won't give either of the other two much charity, especially when they get bored with Sir Keir.

MattW · October 2

YES !!!

(sorry, saw the pun)

biggles · October 2

FF43 said:
If I were candidate for Leader of Opposition my pitch would be:

- Sort out the Party organisation, operations and finances
- Take advantage of our time in opposition to reset our direction and have a wider discussion about where we want to go as a party.
- Prepare ourselves so we're in the best possible shape for when the Government calls the next election.

But equally would I know? No-one in the Conservative Party thinks any of this is necessary.

Also, sharpen up you and your spouse’s shopping lists for clothes. Turns out being LoTO is peak time to cash in on that.

Foxy · October 2

FF43 said:
If I were candidate for Leader of Opposition my pitch would be:

- Sort out the Party organisation, operations and finances
- Take advantage of our time in opposition to reset our direction and have a wider discussion about where we want to go as a party.
- Prepare ourselves so we're in the best possible shape for when the Government calls the next election.

But what would I know? No-one in the Conservative Party thinks any of this is necessary.

They need Starmer to cross the floor. No one on the Tory benches is capable of that triad.

Scott_xP · October 2

Kemi's job this week was to hide the crazy

Epic fail...

Sandpit · October 2

Not seen the speeches yet, but happy for Cleverly that his price is shortening.

TheScreamingEagles · October 2

Scott_xP said:
Kemi's job this week was to hide the crazy

Epic fail...

Please, it is Kemi-kaze.

MattW · October 2

I can't help wondering whether Jenrick has that Anglo-Saxon hoard that vanished from the field next door, in pursuit of the preservation of the native culture.

BartholomewRoberts · October 2

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:
On Cleverly, this seems a strange statement - as I hear it - that an elderly couple in a 4 or 5 bedroom house are prevented from downsizing by the existence of Stamp Duty.

Have I missed something?

https://youtu.be/MiMGGqB8MbA?t=6569
Yes, many of us have been making this exact same point for years.

Stamp Duty is a wretched tax on mobility.

If you are an elderly couple in a 5 bed house and you stay there until you pass on you don't pay a penny of stamp duty. If you downsize, you do.

Those arguing in favour of stamp duty make the fallacious argument that as there's large sums of money involved at the time of sales it is expedient to have a tax then, but the problem is it is a massive disincentive to mobility and discourages behaviour we should encourage.

Far better to abolish stamp duty and replace with an annual land value tax. A couple that downsizes should be decreasing their tax bill, not getting a hefty one they'd otherwise avoid.
They the Cleverly claim was that they had been stuck there for 35 years, which is bizarre.

(I pretty much agree with you on the abolition, but I'd do it as part of making Council Tax 0.5% of property value, which is different to your LVT but of the same ilk.)
It isn't bizarre. Many people stay in "the family home" for decades with no family living with them. Our tax system positively encourages them to stay there and not to move and will have done so for each of those 35 years.
So you don’t believe in the right to own property and do as you wish with it? Bit Communist.
No I do believe in the right to property ownership.

Quite the opposite, only taxing people when they buy or move is not letting them "do as they wish with it".

Taxes should be flat, low and consistent.

Those who buy this year should pay the same taxes as those who bought 50 years ago.
But what’s are you taking when you apply land value tax to people? You’re taxing quiet enjoyment, presumably for the common good.

Why would you apply land value tax to people? You would apply it to land and whoever owns the land pays the tax.

Whether you like it or not the country has running costs. Defence, law and order etc and whatever else Parliament has decreed.

The country only has a finite amount of land, if you own a portion of this countries land you should pay a portion of the running costs of the country.

That's not communism it's perfectly liberal.

You seem to think "quiet enjoyment" should for some reason be taxed less than other enjoyment. I would rather let people do as they please with what they own.

Land should be taxed the same whether the owner chooses to quietly enjoy it, or chooses to work it, or chooses to build on it, or chooses to sell it and the new owner takes responsibility for paying the costs.

Why are you opposed to letting people do as they will with what they own? The state should not get involved, it should take its cut of funding for the running costs of the country but let the owner do as he, she or they pleases to do with it.

rottenborough · October 2

Yep. I agree.

(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
39m
Watched the hustings. Only one candidate looked like a serious leader and potential Prime Minister. James Cleverly. And it wasn’t really that close.

https://x.com/DPJHodges?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author

rottenborough · October 2

I wonder if Cleverly will run again after Jenrick has been ousted in two years time?

Nigelb · October 2

Drone footage of Russians murdering 16 POWs.
https://x.com/IAPonomarenko/status/1841189919894475095

Eabhal · October 2

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:
On Cleverly, this seems a strange statement - as I hear it - that an elderly couple in a 4 or 5 bedroom house are prevented from downsizing by the existence of Stamp Duty.

Have I missed something?

https://youtu.be/MiMGGqB8MbA?t=6569
Yes, many of us have been making this exact same point for years.

Stamp Duty is a wretched tax on mobility.

If you are an elderly couple in a 5 bed house and you stay there until you pass on you don't pay a penny of stamp duty. If you downsize, you do.

Those arguing in favour of stamp duty make the fallacious argument that as there's large sums of money involved at the time of sales it is expedient to have a tax then, but the problem is it is a massive disincentive to mobility and discourages behaviour we should encourage.

Far better to abolish stamp duty and replace with an annual land value tax. A couple that downsizes should be decreasing their tax bill, not getting a hefty one they'd otherwise avoid.
They the Cleverly claim was that they had been stuck there for 35 years, which is bizarre.

(I pretty much agree with you on the abolition, but I'd do it as part of making Council Tax 0.5% of property value, which is different to your LVT but of the same ilk.)
It isn't bizarre. Many people stay in "the family home" for decades with no family living with them. Our tax system positively encourages them to stay there and not to move and will have done so for each of those 35 years.
So you don’t believe in the right to own property and do as you wish with it? Bit Communist.
No I do believe in the right to property ownership.

Quite the opposite, only taxing people when they buy or move is not letting them "do as they wish with it".

Taxes should be flat, low and consistent.

Those who buy this year should pay the same taxes as those who bought 50 years ago.
But what’s are you taking when you apply land value tax to people? You’re taxing quiet enjoyment, presumably for the common good.
Why would you apply land value tax to people? You would apply it to land and whoever owns the land pays the tax.

Whether you like it or not the country has running costs. Defence, law and order etc and whatever else Parliament has decreed.

The country only has a finite amount of land, if you own a portion of this countries land you should pay a portion of the running costs of the country.

That's not communism it's perfectly liberal.

You seem to think "quiet enjoyment" should for some reason be taxed less than other enjoyment. I would rather let people do as they please with what they own.

Land should be taxed the same whether the owner chooses to quietly enjoy it, or chooses to work it, or chooses to build on it, or chooses to sell it and the new owner takes responsibility for paying the costs.

Why are you opposed to letting people do as they will with what they own? The state should not get involved, it should take its cut of funding for the running costs of the country but let the owner do as he, she or they pleases to do with it.

It would incentivise building flats, opening more space up for infrastructure, commercial buildings, public parks, nature reserves...

MattW is right in that you'd want to still call it council tax to help with the optics. Questions would remain about business rates (NDR in Scotland) and whether you'd make a similar change there.

rottenborough · October 2

MattW said:
I can't help wondering whether Jenrick has that Anglo-Saxon hoard that vanished from the field next door, in pursuit of the preservation of the native culture.

'Early medieval' hoard please.

bondegezou · October 2

FPT...

Andy_JS said:

TheScreamingEagles said:
Well worth a read, and another example of why I am glad I didn't become an MP.

Shhh! My dad was a Tory MP: why I didn’t tell my friends

Growing up, Adam Hart was proud that his father, Simon, had a job that other people were interested in. Then the internet abuse started. At university having the Conservative secretary of state for Wales as a parent was social death

...In June 2016, when I was revising for my GCSEs, the MP Jo Cox was murdered after leaving her constituency surgery. Like everyone else, I had read many news articles about murders, but this one, with its pictures of a fortysomething MP with two kids, felt odd.

At home, the powers-that-be reviewed our “home security”. We failed on account of the public footpath that runs past our front door. Some men fitted a panic button in my parents’ wardrobe as well as a motion-triggered alarm outside the door. The first night the alarm was in operation a badger walked past and set it off, summoning Dyfed-Powys police to our house at 3am. As my sister and I were away, my parents saw the policemen at the door and assumed one of us had died.

https://www.thetimes.com/article/b5a924ff-7014-4a6f-9bf8-5585687d8454
Why have some people started behaving like this in recent years? I don't understand it.

I don't think anyone definitively knows. The Internet has reduced barriers and we have the phenomenon of online disinhibition. People sound off online in a way they wouldn't in person, and it has become much easier for your abuse to reach its target. 50 years ago, people perhaps had the same thoughts, but they didn't have an easy way of expressing them at someone. Maybe most people aren't like that, but those who are gravitate to online environments.

But maybe it's also about a degradation of political discourse, brought about by more partisan media. Then there's the influence of foreign agents, Russia etc. deliberately injecting discord. We now know Russia was funding right-wing commentators to make divisive social media content, down to complaining the latest Star Wars series is "too woke".

Eabhal · October 2

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:
On Cleverly, this seems a strange statement - as I hear it - that an elderly couple in a 4 or 5 bedroom house are prevented from downsizing by the existence of Stamp Duty.

Have I missed something?

https://youtu.be/MiMGGqB8MbA?t=6569
Yes, many of us have been making this exact same point for years.

Stamp Duty is a wretched tax on mobility.

If you are an elderly couple in a 5 bed house and you stay there until you pass on you don't pay a penny of stamp duty. If you downsize, you do.

Those arguing in favour of stamp duty make the fallacious argument that as there's large sums of money involved at the time of sales it is expedient to have a tax then, but the problem is it is a massive disincentive to mobility and discourages behaviour we should encourage.

Far better to abolish stamp duty and replace with an annual land value tax. A couple that downsizes should be decreasing their tax bill, not getting a hefty one they'd otherwise avoid.
They the Cleverly claim was that they had been stuck there for 35 years, which is bizarre.

(I pretty much agree with you on the abolition, but I'd do it as part of making Council Tax 0.5% of property value, which is different to your LVT but of the same ilk.)
It isn't bizarre. Many people stay in "the family home" for decades with no family living with them. Our tax system positively encourages them to stay there and not to move and will have done so for each of those 35 years.
So you don’t believe in the right to own property and do as you wish with it? Bit Communist.
No I do believe in the right to property ownership.

Quite the opposite, only taxing people when they buy or move is not letting them "do as they wish with it".

Taxes should be flat, low and consistent.

Those who buy this year should pay the same taxes as those who bought 50 years ago.
But what’s are you taking when you apply land value tax to people? You’re taxing quiet enjoyment, presumably for the common good.
Why would you apply land value tax to people? You would apply it to land and whoever owns the land pays the tax.

Whether you like it or not the country has running costs. Defence, law and order etc and whatever else Parliament has decreed.

The country only has a finite amount of land, if you own a portion of this countries land you should pay a portion of the running costs of the country.

That's not communism it's perfectly liberal.

You seem to think "quiet enjoyment" should for some reason be taxed less than other enjoyment. I would rather let people do as they please with what they own.

Land should be taxed the same whether the owner chooses to quietly enjoy it, or chooses to work it, or chooses to build on it, or chooses to sell it and the new owner takes responsibility for paying the costs.

Why are you opposed to letting people do as they will with what they own? The state should not get involved, it should take its cut of funding for the running costs of the country but let the owner do as he, she or they pleases to do with it.
It would incentivise building flats, opening more space up for infrastructure, commercial buildings, public parks, nature reserves...

MattW is right in that you'd want to still call it council tax to help with the optics. Questions would remain about business rates (NDR in Scotland) and whether you'd make a similar change there.

I'd also apply it to residents parking spaces, including on public land.

Taz · October 2

I had a double take at the header !!!!

TheScreamingEagles · October 2

Taz said:
I had a double take at the header !!!!

Why?

Taz · October 2

Scott_xP said:
Kemi's job this week was to hide the crazy

Epic fail...

Less than a month ago she was leading with around 45%.

Real crash and burn here.

Richard_Tyndall · October 2

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:
On Cleverly, this seems a strange statement - as I hear it - that an elderly couple in a 4 or 5 bedroom house are prevented from downsizing by the existence of Stamp Duty.

Have I missed something?

https://youtu.be/MiMGGqB8MbA?t=6569
Yes, many of us have been making this exact same point for years.

Stamp Duty is a wretched tax on mobility.

If you are an elderly couple in a 5 bed house and you stay there until you pass on you don't pay a penny of stamp duty. If you downsize, you do.

Those arguing in favour of stamp duty make the fallacious argument that as there's large sums of money involved at the time of sales it is expedient to have a tax then, but the problem is it is a massive disincentive to mobility and discourages behaviour we should encourage.

Far better to abolish stamp duty and replace with an annual land value tax. A couple that downsizes should be decreasing their tax bill, not getting a hefty one they'd otherwise avoid.
They the Cleverly claim was that they had been stuck there for 35 years, which is bizarre.

(I pretty much agree with you on the abolition, but I'd do it as part of making Council Tax 0.5% of property value, which is different to your LVT but of the same ilk.)
It isn't bizarre. Many people stay in "the family home" for decades with no family living with them. Our tax system positively encourages them to stay there and not to move and will have done so for each of those 35 years.
So you don’t believe in the right to own property and do as you wish with it? Bit Communist.
No I do believe in the right to property ownership.

Quite the opposite, only taxing people when they buy or move is not letting them "do as they wish with it".

Taxes should be flat, low and consistent.

Those who buy this year should pay the same taxes as those who bought 50 years ago.
But what’s are you taking when you apply land value tax to people? You’re taxing quiet enjoyment, presumably for the common good.
Why would you apply land value tax to people? You would apply it to land and whoever owns the land pays the tax.

Whether you like it or not the country has running costs. Defence, law and order etc and whatever else Parliament has decreed.

The country only has a finite amount of land, if you own a portion of this countries land you should pay a portion of the running costs of the country.

That's not communism it's perfectly liberal.

You seem to think "quiet enjoyment" should for some reason be taxed less than other enjoyment. I would rather let people do as they please with what they own.

Land should be taxed the same whether the owner chooses to quietly enjoy it, or chooses to work it, or chooses to build on it, or chooses to sell it and the new owner takes responsibility for paying the costs.

Why are you opposed to letting people do as they will with what they own? The state should not get involved, it should take its cut of funding for the running costs of the country but let the owner do as he, she or they pleases to do with it.

For land with houses on I agree with you - as long as the LVT is replacing Council tax and is broadly neutral in its effects. But for land that is being worked for food, assuming you are going to have the same value per acre for all land, then suddenly pretty much every farm in the country becomes unviable. And what about stuff like the National Parks or National Trust land? I can definitely see the case for habitable land - and land with planning permission to prevent land banking by developers - but land that is being worked to provide is with our food or amenity land for our benefit - cannot be included as it would destroy much of the rural economy.

BartholomewRoberts · October 2

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:
On Cleverly, this seems a strange statement - as I hear it - that an elderly couple in a 4 or 5 bedroom house are prevented from downsizing by the existence of Stamp Duty.

Have I missed something?

https://youtu.be/MiMGGqB8MbA?t=6569
Yes, many of us have been making this exact same point for years.

Stamp Duty is a wretched tax on mobility.

If you are an elderly couple in a 5 bed house and you stay there until you pass on you don't pay a penny of stamp duty. If you downsize, you do.

Those arguing in favour of stamp duty make the fallacious argument that as there's large sums of money involved at the time of sales it is expedient to have a tax then, but the problem is it is a massive disincentive to mobility and discourages behaviour we should encourage.

Far better to abolish stamp duty and replace with an annual land value tax. A couple that downsizes should be decreasing their tax bill, not getting a hefty one they'd otherwise avoid.
They the Cleverly claim was that they had been stuck there for 35 years, which is bizarre.

(I pretty much agree with you on the abolition, but I'd do it as part of making Council Tax 0.5% of property value, which is different to your LVT but of the same ilk.)
It isn't bizarre. Many people stay in "the family home" for decades with no family living with them. Our tax system positively encourages them to stay there and not to move and will have done so for each of those 35 years.
So you don’t believe in the right to own property and do as you wish with it? Bit Communist.
No I do believe in the right to property ownership.

Quite the opposite, only taxing people when they buy or move is not letting them "do as they wish with it".

Taxes should be flat, low and consistent.

Those who buy this year should pay the same taxes as those who bought 50 years ago.
But what’s are you taking when you apply land value tax to people? You’re taxing quiet enjoyment, presumably for the common good.
Why would you apply land value tax to people? You would apply it to land and whoever owns the land pays the tax.

Whether you like it or not the country has running costs. Defence, law and order etc and whatever else Parliament has decreed.

The country only has a finite amount of land, if you own a portion of this countries land you should pay a portion of the running costs of the country.

That's not communism it's perfectly liberal.

You seem to think "quiet enjoyment" should for some reason be taxed less than other enjoyment. I would rather let people do as they please with what they own.

Land should be taxed the same whether the owner chooses to quietly enjoy it, or chooses to work it, or chooses to build on it, or chooses to sell it and the new owner takes responsibility for paying the costs.

Why are you opposed to letting people do as they will with what they own? The state should not get involved, it should take its cut of funding for the running costs of the country but let the owner do as he, she or they pleases to do with it.
It would incentivise building flats, opening more space up for infrastructure, commercial buildings, public parks, nature reserves...

MattW is right in that you'd want to still call it council tax to help with the optics. Questions would remain about business rates (NDR in Scotland) and whether you'd make a similar change there.

Even though I personally dislike flats I recognise that's a matter of personal taste and accept I should pay more for owning a house than a flat, as that's my choice and I'm OK to pay for my own choices.

Our current system of taxing someone who buys a flat, but not taxing someone who banks land, is utterly obscene.

I would gladly eliminate Council Tax as well as Stamp Duty at the same time as introducing a Land Tax, but the issue with calling it Council Tax is that in order to be fiscally neutral it would need to raise as much as Council Tax and Stamp Duty combined, and if you call it Council Tax then everyone should on average be seeing an increase to cover the Stamp Duty element so it will probably be deeply unpopular.

TheScreamingEagles · October 2

Taz said:

Scott_xP said:
Kemi's job this week was to hide the crazy

Epic fail...
Less than a month ago she was leading with around 45%.

Real crash and burn here.

I remember there was some wise fellow who was warning that Kemi Badenoch was a duffer.

He received a lot of abuse for that but he was proven right.

MaxPB · October 2

Taz said:

Scott_xP said:
Kemi's job this week was to hide the crazy

Epic fail...
Less than a month ago she was leading with around 45%.

Real crash and burn here.

I think as soon as her take on the minimum wage was publicised we should all have recognised she was out of the running. I really hope that she learns from this experience and matures her thought process and doesn't just say the first thing that pops into her brain because she thinks people will react to it, leave that to YouTube personalities and podcasters.

HYUFD · October 2

Jenrick came out best today I thought but yes Cleverly now looks his most likely rival in the final 2 unless he lends some votes to Tugendhat to then knock out Cleverly in the next round.

Badenoch likely then goes out once Tugendhat or Cleverly's votes switch to the other

MaxPB · October 2

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:
On Cleverly, this seems a strange statement - as I hear it - that an elderly couple in a 4 or 5 bedroom house are prevented from downsizing by the existence of Stamp Duty.

Have I missed something?

https://youtu.be/MiMGGqB8MbA?t=6569
Yes, many of us have been making this exact same point for years.

Stamp Duty is a wretched tax on mobility.

If you are an elderly couple in a 5 bed house and you stay there until you pass on you don't pay a penny of stamp duty. If you downsize, you do.

Those arguing in favour of stamp duty make the fallacious argument that as there's large sums of money involved at the time of sales it is expedient to have a tax then, but the problem is it is a massive disincentive to mobility and discourages behaviour we should encourage.

Far better to abolish stamp duty and replace with an annual land value tax. A couple that downsizes should be decreasing their tax bill, not getting a hefty one they'd otherwise avoid.
They the Cleverly claim was that they had been stuck there for 35 years, which is bizarre.

(I pretty much agree with you on the abolition, but I'd do it as part of making Council Tax 0.5% of property value, which is different to your LVT but of the same ilk.)
It isn't bizarre. Many people stay in "the family home" for decades with no family living with them. Our tax system positively encourages them to stay there and not to move and will have done so for each of those 35 years.
So you don’t believe in the right to own property and do as you wish with it? Bit Communist.
No I do believe in the right to property ownership.

Quite the opposite, only taxing people when they buy or move is not letting them "do as they wish with it".

Taxes should be flat, low and consistent.

Those who buy this year should pay the same taxes as those who bought 50 years ago.
But what’s are you taking when you apply land value tax to people? You’re taxing quiet enjoyment, presumably for the common good.
Why would you apply land value tax to people? You would apply it to land and whoever owns the land pays the tax.

Whether you like it or not the country has running costs. Defence, law and order etc and whatever else Parliament has decreed.

The country only has a finite amount of land, if you own a portion of this countries land you should pay a portion of the running costs of the country.

That's not communism it's perfectly liberal.

You seem to think "quiet enjoyment" should for some reason be taxed less than other enjoyment. I would rather let people do as they please with what they own.

Land should be taxed the same whether the owner chooses to quietly enjoy it, or chooses to work it, or chooses to build on it, or chooses to sell it and the new owner takes responsibility for paying the costs.

Why are you opposed to letting people do as they will with what they own? The state should not get involved, it should take its cut of funding for the running costs of the country but let the owner do as he, she or they pleases to do with it.
For land with houses on I agree with you - as long as the LVT is replacing Council tax and is broadly neutral in its effects. But for land that is being worked for food, assuming you are going to have the same value per acre for all land, then suddenly pretty much every farm in the country becomes unviable. And what about stuff like the National Parks or National Trust land? I can definitely see the case for habitable land - and land with planning permission to prevent land banking by developers - but land that is being worked to provide is with our food or amenity land for our benefit - cannot be included as it would destroy much of the rural economy.

I think that's probably the end goal for Barty, he doesn't seem like he'd be happy until 99% of land is paved over for housing.

TimS · October 2

MaxPB said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:
On Cleverly, this seems a strange statement - as I hear it - that an elderly couple in a 4 or 5 bedroom house are prevented from downsizing by the existence of Stamp Duty.

Have I missed something?

https://youtu.be/MiMGGqB8MbA?t=6569
Yes, many of us have been making this exact same point for years.

Stamp Duty is a wretched tax on mobility.

If you are an elderly couple in a 5 bed house and you stay there until you pass on you don't pay a penny of stamp duty. If you downsize, you do.

Those arguing in favour of stamp duty make the fallacious argument that as there's large sums of money involved at the time of sales it is expedient to have a tax then, but the problem is it is a massive disincentive to mobility and discourages behaviour we should encourage.

Far better to abolish stamp duty and replace with an annual land value tax. A couple that downsizes should be decreasing their tax bill, not getting a hefty one they'd otherwise avoid.
They the Cleverly claim was that they had been stuck there for 35 years, which is bizarre.

(I pretty much agree with you on the abolition, but I'd do it as part of making Council Tax 0.5% of property value, which is different to your LVT but of the same ilk.)
It isn't bizarre. Many people stay in "the family home" for decades with no family living with them. Our tax system positively encourages them to stay there and not to move and will have done so for each of those 35 years.
So you don’t believe in the right to own property and do as you wish with it? Bit Communist.
No I do believe in the right to property ownership.

Quite the opposite, only taxing people when they buy or move is not letting them "do as they wish with it".

Taxes should be flat, low and consistent.

Those who buy this year should pay the same taxes as those who bought 50 years ago.
But what’s are you taking when you apply land value tax to people? You’re taxing quiet enjoyment, presumably for the common good.
Why would you apply land value tax to people? You would apply it to land and whoever owns the land pays the tax.

Whether you like it or not the country has running costs. Defence, law and order etc and whatever else Parliament has decreed.

The country only has a finite amount of land, if you own a portion of this countries land you should pay a portion of the running costs of the country.

That's not communism it's perfectly liberal.

You seem to think "quiet enjoyment" should for some reason be taxed less than other enjoyment. I would rather let people do as they please with what they own.

Land should be taxed the same whether the owner chooses to quietly enjoy it, or chooses to work it, or chooses to build on it, or chooses to sell it and the new owner takes responsibility for paying the costs.

Why are you opposed to letting people do as they will with what they own? The state should not get involved, it should take its cut of funding for the running costs of the country but let the owner do as he, she or they pleases to do with it.
For land with houses on I agree with you - as long as the LVT is replacing Council tax and is broadly neutral in its effects. But for land that is being worked for food, assuming you are going to have the same value per acre for all land, then suddenly pretty much every farm in the country becomes unviable. And what about stuff like the National Parks or National Trust land? I can definitely see the case for habitable land - and land with planning permission to prevent land banking by developers - but land that is being worked to provide is with our food or amenity land for our benefit - cannot be included as it would destroy much of the rural economy.
I think that's probably the end goal for Barty, he doesn't seem like he'd be happy until 99% of land is paved over for housing.

LVT obviously varies depending on land value, and agricultural land is way cheaper than residential land. Public amenity land is usually exempt in most versions.

BartholomewRoberts · October 2

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:
On Cleverly, this seems a strange statement - as I hear it - that an elderly couple in a 4 or 5 bedroom house are prevented from downsizing by the existence of Stamp Duty.

Have I missed something?

https://youtu.be/MiMGGqB8MbA?t=6569
Yes, many of us have been making this exact same point for years.

Stamp Duty is a wretched tax on mobility.

If you are an elderly couple in a 5 bed house and you stay there until you pass on you don't pay a penny of stamp duty. If you downsize, you do.

Those arguing in favour of stamp duty make the fallacious argument that as there's large sums of money involved at the time of sales it is expedient to have a tax then, but the problem is it is a massive disincentive to mobility and discourages behaviour we should encourage.

Far better to abolish stamp duty and replace with an annual land value tax. A couple that downsizes should be decreasing their tax bill, not getting a hefty one they'd otherwise avoid.
They the Cleverly claim was that they had been stuck there for 35 years, which is bizarre.

(I pretty much agree with you on the abolition, but I'd do it as part of making Council Tax 0.5% of property value, which is different to your LVT but of the same ilk.)
It isn't bizarre. Many people stay in "the family home" for decades with no family living with them. Our tax system positively encourages them to stay there and not to move and will have done so for each of those 35 years.
So you don’t believe in the right to own property and do as you wish with it? Bit Communist.
No I do believe in the right to property ownership.

Quite the opposite, only taxing people when they buy or move is not letting them "do as they wish with it".

Taxes should be flat, low and consistent.

Those who buy this year should pay the same taxes as those who bought 50 years ago.
But what’s are you taking when you apply land value tax to people? You’re taxing quiet enjoyment, presumably for the common good.
Why would you apply land value tax to people? You would apply it to land and whoever owns the land pays the tax.

Whether you like it or not the country has running costs. Defence, law and order etc and whatever else Parliament has decreed.

The country only has a finite amount of land, if you own a portion of this countries land you should pay a portion of the running costs of the country.

That's not communism it's perfectly liberal.

You seem to think "quiet enjoyment" should for some reason be taxed less than other enjoyment. I would rather let people do as they please with what they own.

Land should be taxed the same whether the owner chooses to quietly enjoy it, or chooses to work it, or chooses to build on it, or chooses to sell it and the new owner takes responsibility for paying the costs.

Why are you opposed to letting people do as they will with what they own? The state should not get involved, it should take its cut of funding for the running costs of the country but let the owner do as he, she or they pleases to do with it.
For land with houses on I agree with you - as long as the LVT is replacing Council tax and is broadly neutral in its effects. But for land that is being worked for food, assuming you are going to have the same value per acre for all land, then suddenly pretty much every farm in the country becomes unviable. And what about stuff like the National Parks or National Trust land? I can definitely see the case for habitable land - and land with planning permission to prevent land banking by developers - but land that is being worked to provide is with our food or amenity land for our benefit - cannot be included as it would destroy much of the rural economy.

An LVT should be able to have local land values factored in, which would make rural costs cheaper than residential ones already.

If rural land is productively used it should be able to pay for some of the costs of running the country, but I agree with it being less.

The Treasury could exempt National Trust etc land as appropriate.

If we moved as I desire to a zonal system then you can include this tax within the zonal system by taxing residentially zoned land more - and I would allow anyone who owns rural land to change their own designation if they choose to develop it to residential (while letting other rural people keep theirs if they so desire) but if they change it then they would become liable for paying the taxes as a consequence of their choice.

Richard_Tyndall · October 2

TimS said:

MaxPB said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:
On Cleverly, this seems a strange statement - as I hear it - that an elderly couple in a 4 or 5 bedroom house are prevented from downsizing by the existence of Stamp Duty.

Have I missed something?

https://youtu.be/MiMGGqB8MbA?t=6569
Yes, many of us have been making this exact same point for years.

Stamp Duty is a wretched tax on mobility.

If you are an elderly couple in a 5 bed house and you stay there until you pass on you don't pay a penny of stamp duty. If you downsize, you do.

Those arguing in favour of stamp duty make the fallacious argument that as there's large sums of money involved at the time of sales it is expedient to have a tax then, but the problem is it is a massive disincentive to mobility and discourages behaviour we should encourage.

Far better to abolish stamp duty and replace with an annual land value tax. A couple that downsizes should be decreasing their tax bill, not getting a hefty one they'd otherwise avoid.
They the Cleverly claim was that they had been stuck there for 35 years, which is bizarre.

(I pretty much agree with you on the abolition, but I'd do it as part of making Council Tax 0.5% of property value, which is different to your LVT but of the same ilk.)
It isn't bizarre. Many people stay in "the family home" for decades with no family living with them. Our tax system positively encourages them to stay there and not to move and will have done so for each of those 35 years.
So you don’t believe in the right to own property and do as you wish with it? Bit Communist.
No I do believe in the right to property ownership.

Quite the opposite, only taxing people when they buy or move is not letting them "do as they wish with it".

Taxes should be flat, low and consistent.

Those who buy this year should pay the same taxes as those who bought 50 years ago.
But what’s are you taking when you apply land value tax to people? You’re taxing quiet enjoyment, presumably for the common good.
Why would you apply land value tax to people? You would apply it to land and whoever owns the land pays the tax.

Whether you like it or not the country has running costs. Defence, law and order etc and whatever else Parliament has decreed.

The country only has a finite amount of land, if you own a portion of this countries land you should pay a portion of the running costs of the country.

That's not communism it's perfectly liberal.

You seem to think "quiet enjoyment" should for some reason be taxed less than other enjoyment. I would rather let people do as they please with what they own.

Land should be taxed the same whether the owner chooses to quietly enjoy it, or chooses to work it, or chooses to build on it, or chooses to sell it and the new owner takes responsibility for paying the costs.

Why are you opposed to letting people do as they will with what they own? The state should not get involved, it should take its cut of funding for the running costs of the country but let the owner do as he, she or they pleases to do with it.
For land with houses on I agree with you - as long as the LVT is replacing Council tax and is broadly neutral in its effects. But for land that is being worked for food, assuming you are going to have the same value per acre for all land, then suddenly pretty much every farm in the country becomes unviable. And what about stuff like the National Parks or National Trust land? I can definitely see the case for habitable land - and land with planning permission to prevent land banking by developers - but land that is being worked to provide is with our food or amenity land for our benefit - cannot be included as it would destroy much of the rural economy.
I think that's probably the end goal for Barty, he doesn't seem like he'd be happy until 99% of land is paved over for housing.
LVT obviously varies depending on land value, and agricultural land is way cheaper than residential land. Public amenity land is usually exempt in most versions.

I agree and that is sensible but that is not what Bart is proposing.

"Land should be taxed the same whether the owner chooses to quietly enjoy it, or chooses to work it, or chooses to build on it, or chooses to sell it and the new owner takes responsibility for paying the costs."

LostPassword · October 2

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:
On Cleverly, this seems a strange statement - as I hear it - that an elderly couple in a 4 or 5 bedroom house are prevented from downsizing by the existence of Stamp Duty.

Have I missed something?

https://youtu.be/MiMGGqB8MbA?t=6569
Yes, many of us have been making this exact same point for years.

Stamp Duty is a wretched tax on mobility.

If you are an elderly couple in a 5 bed house and you stay there until you pass on you don't pay a penny of stamp duty. If you downsize, you do.

Those arguing in favour of stamp duty make the fallacious argument that as there's large sums of money involved at the time of sales it is expedient to have a tax then, but the problem is it is a massive disincentive to mobility and discourages behaviour we should encourage.

Far better to abolish stamp duty and replace with an annual land value tax. A couple that downsizes should be decreasing their tax bill, not getting a hefty one they'd otherwise avoid.
They the Cleverly claim was that they had been stuck there for 35 years, which is bizarre.

(I pretty much agree with you on the abolition, but I'd do it as part of making Council Tax 0.5% of property value, which is different to your LVT but of the same ilk.)
It isn't bizarre. Many people stay in "the family home" for decades with no family living with them. Our tax system positively encourages them to stay there and not to move and will have done so for each of those 35 years.
So you don’t believe in the right to own property and do as you wish with it? Bit Communist.
No I do believe in the right to property ownership.

Quite the opposite, only taxing people when they buy or move is not letting them "do as they wish with it".

Taxes should be flat, low and consistent.

Those who buy this year should pay the same taxes as those who bought 50 years ago.
But what’s are you taking when you apply land value tax to people? You’re taxing quiet enjoyment, presumably for the common good.
Why would you apply land value tax to people? You would apply it to land and whoever owns the land pays the tax.

Whether you like it or not the country has running costs. Defence, law and order etc and whatever else Parliament has decreed.

The country only has a finite amount of land, if you own a portion of this countries land you should pay a portion of the running costs of the country.

That's not communism it's perfectly liberal.

You seem to think "quiet enjoyment" should for some reason be taxed less than other enjoyment. I would rather let people do as they please with what they own.

Land should be taxed the same whether the owner chooses to quietly enjoy it, or chooses to work it, or chooses to build on it, or chooses to sell it and the new owner takes responsibility for paying the costs.

Why are you opposed to letting people do as they will with what they own? The state should not get involved, it should take its cut of funding for the running costs of the country but let the owner do as he, she or they pleases to do with it.
For land with houses on I agree with you - as long as the LVT is replacing Council tax and is broadly neutral in its effects. But for land that is being worked for food, assuming you are going to have the same value per acre for all land, then suddenly pretty much every farm in the country becomes unviable. And what about stuff like the National Parks or National Trust land? I can definitely see the case for habitable land - and land with planning permission to prevent land banking by developers - but land that is being worked to provide is with our food or amenity land for our benefit - cannot be included as it would destroy much of the rural economy.

Why would you assume the same value per acre? That would make it an Acreage Tax, not a Land Value Tax. Completely different kettle of fish.

Ideally a LVT would have the additional benefit of discouraging people from buying agricultural land as an inheritance tax dodge, making agricultural land prices lower, and therefore agriculture more profitable.

Eabhal · October 2

TimS said:

MaxPB said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:
On Cleverly, this seems a strange statement - as I hear it - that an elderly couple in a 4 or 5 bedroom house are prevented from downsizing by the existence of Stamp Duty.

Have I missed something?

https://youtu.be/MiMGGqB8MbA?t=6569
Yes, many of us have been making this exact same point for years.

Stamp Duty is a wretched tax on mobility.

If you are an elderly couple in a 5 bed house and you stay there until you pass on you don't pay a penny of stamp duty. If you downsize, you do.

Those arguing in favour of stamp duty make the fallacious argument that as there's large sums of money involved at the time of sales it is expedient to have a tax then, but the problem is it is a massive disincentive to mobility and discourages behaviour we should encourage.

Far better to abolish stamp duty and replace with an annual land value tax. A couple that downsizes should be decreasing their tax bill, not getting a hefty one they'd otherwise avoid.
They the Cleverly claim was that they had been stuck there for 35 years, which is bizarre.

(I pretty much agree with you on the abolition, but I'd do it as part of making Council Tax 0.5% of property value, which is different to your LVT but of the same ilk.)
It isn't bizarre. Many people stay in "the family home" for decades with no family living with them. Our tax system positively encourages them to stay there and not to move and will have done so for each of those 35 years.
So you don’t believe in the right to own property and do as you wish with it? Bit Communist.
No I do believe in the right to property ownership.

Quite the opposite, only taxing people when they buy or move is not letting them "do as they wish with it".

Taxes should be flat, low and consistent.

Those who buy this year should pay the same taxes as those who bought 50 years ago.
But what’s are you taking when you apply land value tax to people? You’re taxing quiet enjoyment, presumably for the common good.
Why would you apply land value tax to people? You would apply it to land and whoever owns the land pays the tax.

Whether you like it or not the country has running costs. Defence, law and order etc and whatever else Parliament has decreed.

The country only has a finite amount of land, if you own a portion of this countries land you should pay a portion of the running costs of the country.

That's not communism it's perfectly liberal.

You seem to think "quiet enjoyment" should for some reason be taxed less than other enjoyment. I would rather let people do as they please with what they own.

Land should be taxed the same whether the owner chooses to quietly enjoy it, or chooses to work it, or chooses to build on it, or chooses to sell it and the new owner takes responsibility for paying the costs.

Why are you opposed to letting people do as they will with what they own? The state should not get involved, it should take its cut of funding for the running costs of the country but let the owner do as he, she or they pleases to do with it.
For land with houses on I agree with you - as long as the LVT is replacing Council tax and is broadly neutral in its effects. But for land that is being worked for food, assuming you are going to have the same value per acre for all land, then suddenly pretty much every farm in the country becomes unviable. And what about stuff like the National Parks or National Trust land? I can definitely see the case for habitable land - and land with planning permission to prevent land banking by developers - but land that is being worked to provide is with our food or amenity land for our benefit - cannot be included as it would destroy much of the rural economy.
I think that's probably the end goal for Barty, he doesn't seem like he'd be happy until 99% of land is paved over for housing.
LVT obviously varies depending on land value, and agricultural land is way cheaper than residential land. Public amenity land is usually exempt in most versions.

That's why the interesting bit would be what do with business rates. The opposite?

BartholomewRoberts · October 2

Richard_Tyndall said:

TimS said:

MaxPB said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:
On Cleverly, this seems a strange statement - as I hear it - that an elderly couple in a 4 or 5 bedroom house are prevented from downsizing by the existence of Stamp Duty.

Have I missed something?

https://youtu.be/MiMGGqB8MbA?t=6569
Yes, many of us have been making this exact same point for years.

Stamp Duty is a wretched tax on mobility.

If you are an elderly couple in a 5 bed house and you stay there until you pass on you don't pay a penny of stamp duty. If you downsize, you do.

Those arguing in favour of stamp duty make the fallacious argument that as there's large sums of money involved at the time of sales it is expedient to have a tax then, but the problem is it is a massive disincentive to mobility and discourages behaviour we should encourage.

Far better to abolish stamp duty and replace with an annual land value tax. A couple that downsizes should be decreasing their tax bill, not getting a hefty one they'd otherwise avoid.
They the Cleverly claim was that they had been stuck there for 35 years, which is bizarre.

(I pretty much agree with you on the abolition, but I'd do it as part of making Council Tax 0.5% of property value, which is different to your LVT but of the same ilk.)
It isn't bizarre. Many people stay in "the family home" for decades with no family living with them. Our tax system positively encourages them to stay there and not to move and will have done so for each of those 35 years.
So you don’t believe in the right to own property and do as you wish with it? Bit Communist.
No I do believe in the right to property ownership.

Quite the opposite, only taxing people when they buy or move is not letting them "do as they wish with it".

Taxes should be flat, low and consistent.

Those who buy this year should pay the same taxes as those who bought 50 years ago.
But what’s are you taking when you apply land value tax to people? You’re taxing quiet enjoyment, presumably for the common good.
Why would you apply land value tax to people? You would apply it to land and whoever owns the land pays the tax.

Whether you like it or not the country has running costs. Defence, law and order etc and whatever else Parliament has decreed.

The country only has a finite amount of land, if you own a portion of this countries land you should pay a portion of the running costs of the country.

That's not communism it's perfectly liberal.

You seem to think "quiet enjoyment" should for some reason be taxed less than other enjoyment. I would rather let people do as they please with what they own.

Land should be taxed the same whether the owner chooses to quietly enjoy it, or chooses to work it, or chooses to build on it, or chooses to sell it and the new owner takes responsibility for paying the costs.

Why are you opposed to letting people do as they will with what they own? The state should not get involved, it should take its cut of funding for the running costs of the country but let the owner do as he, she or they pleases to do with it.
For land with houses on I agree with you - as long as the LVT is replacing Council tax and is broadly neutral in its effects. But for land that is being worked for food, assuming you are going to have the same value per acre for all land, then suddenly pretty much every farm in the country becomes unviable. And what about stuff like the National Parks or National Trust land? I can definitely see the case for habitable land - and land with planning permission to prevent land banking by developers - but land that is being worked to provide is with our food or amenity land for our benefit - cannot be included as it would destroy much of the rural economy.
I think that's probably the end goal for Barty, he doesn't seem like he'd be happy until 99% of land is paved over for housing.
LVT obviously varies depending on land value, and agricultural land is way cheaper than residential land. Public amenity land is usually exempt in most versions.
I agree and that is sensible but that is not what Bart is proposing.

"Land should be taxed the same whether the owner chooses to quietly enjoy it, or chooses to work it, or chooses to build on it, or chooses to sell it and the new owner takes responsibility for paying the costs."

It is what I am proposing. It should be taxed the same (based on its value) regardless of how you choose to use it. The value is what is taxed, not what is being done with it.

BartholomewRoberts · October 2

MaxPB said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:
On Cleverly, this seems a strange statement - as I hear it - that an elderly couple in a 4 or 5 bedroom house are prevented from downsizing by the existence of Stamp Duty.

Have I missed something?

https://youtu.be/MiMGGqB8MbA?t=6569
Yes, many of us have been making this exact same point for years.

Stamp Duty is a wretched tax on mobility.

If you are an elderly couple in a 5 bed house and you stay there until you pass on you don't pay a penny of stamp duty. If you downsize, you do.

Those arguing in favour of stamp duty make the fallacious argument that as there's large sums of money involved at the time of sales it is expedient to have a tax then, but the problem is it is a massive disincentive to mobility and discourages behaviour we should encourage.

Far better to abolish stamp duty and replace with an annual land value tax. A couple that downsizes should be decreasing their tax bill, not getting a hefty one they'd otherwise avoid.
They the Cleverly claim was that they had been stuck there for 35 years, which is bizarre.

(I pretty much agree with you on the abolition, but I'd do it as part of making Council Tax 0.5% of property value, which is different to your LVT but of the same ilk.)
It isn't bizarre. Many people stay in "the family home" for decades with no family living with them. Our tax system positively encourages them to stay there and not to move and will have done so for each of those 35 years.
So you don’t believe in the right to own property and do as you wish with it? Bit Communist.
No I do believe in the right to property ownership.

Quite the opposite, only taxing people when they buy or move is not letting them "do as they wish with it".

Taxes should be flat, low and consistent.

Those who buy this year should pay the same taxes as those who bought 50 years ago.
But what’s are you taking when you apply land value tax to people? You’re taxing quiet enjoyment, presumably for the common good.
Why would you apply land value tax to people? You would apply it to land and whoever owns the land pays the tax.

Whether you like it or not the country has running costs. Defence, law and order etc and whatever else Parliament has decreed.

The country only has a finite amount of land, if you own a portion of this countries land you should pay a portion of the running costs of the country.

That's not communism it's perfectly liberal.

You seem to think "quiet enjoyment" should for some reason be taxed less than other enjoyment. I would rather let people do as they please with what they own.

Land should be taxed the same whether the owner chooses to quietly enjoy it, or chooses to work it, or chooses to build on it, or chooses to sell it and the new owner takes responsibility for paying the costs.

Why are you opposed to letting people do as they will with what they own? The state should not get involved, it should take its cut of funding for the running costs of the country but let the owner do as he, she or they pleases to do with it.
For land with houses on I agree with you - as long as the LVT is replacing Council tax and is broadly neutral in its effects. But for land that is being worked for food, assuming you are going to have the same value per acre for all land, then suddenly pretty much every farm in the country becomes unviable. And what about stuff like the National Parks or National Trust land? I can definitely see the case for habitable land - and land with planning permission to prevent land banking by developers - but land that is being worked to provide is with our food or amenity land for our benefit - cannot be included as it would destroy much of the rural economy.
I think that's probably the end goal for Barty, he doesn't seem like he'd be happy until 99% of land is paved over for housing.

I'd be delighted with 6% of land. What use would there be of 99% of the country being housing?

I'll be happy when there's no housing shortage. There is one today, there is no reason why there should be though.

Eabhal · October 2

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:
On Cleverly, this seems a strange statement - as I hear it - that an elderly couple in a 4 or 5 bedroom house are prevented from downsizing by the existence of Stamp Duty.

Have I missed something?

https://youtu.be/MiMGGqB8MbA?t=6569
Yes, many of us have been making this exact same point for years.

Stamp Duty is a wretched tax on mobility.

If you are an elderly couple in a 5 bed house and you stay there until you pass on you don't pay a penny of stamp duty. If you downsize, you do.

Those arguing in favour of stamp duty make the fallacious argument that as there's large sums of money involved at the time of sales it is expedient to have a tax then, but the problem is it is a massive disincentive to mobility and discourages behaviour we should encourage.

Far better to abolish stamp duty and replace with an annual land value tax. A couple that downsizes should be decreasing their tax bill, not getting a hefty one they'd otherwise avoid.
They the Cleverly claim was that they had been stuck there for 35 years, which is bizarre.

(I pretty much agree with you on the abolition, but I'd do it as part of making Council Tax 0.5% of property value, which is different to your LVT but of the same ilk.)
It isn't bizarre. Many people stay in "the family home" for decades with no family living with them. Our tax system positively encourages them to stay there and not to move and will have done so for each of those 35 years.
So you don’t believe in the right to own property and do as you wish with it? Bit Communist.
No I do believe in the right to property ownership.

Quite the opposite, only taxing people when they buy or move is not letting them "do as they wish with it".

Taxes should be flat, low and consistent.

Those who buy this year should pay the same taxes as those who bought 50 years ago.
But what’s are you taking when you apply land value tax to people? You’re taxing quiet enjoyment, presumably for the common good.
Why would you apply land value tax to people? You would apply it to land and whoever owns the land pays the tax.

Whether you like it or not the country has running costs. Defence, law and order etc and whatever else Parliament has decreed.

The country only has a finite amount of land, if you own a portion of this countries land you should pay a portion of the running costs of the country.

That's not communism it's perfectly liberal.

You seem to think "quiet enjoyment" should for some reason be taxed less than other enjoyment. I would rather let people do as they please with what they own.

Land should be taxed the same whether the owner chooses to quietly enjoy it, or chooses to work it, or chooses to build on it, or chooses to sell it and the new owner takes responsibility for paying the costs.

Why are you opposed to letting people do as they will with what they own? The state should not get involved, it should take its cut of funding for the running costs of the country but let the owner do as he, she or they pleases to do with it.
For land with houses on I agree with you - as long as the LVT is replacing Council tax and is broadly neutral in its effects. But for land that is being worked for food, assuming you are going to have the same value per acre for all land, then suddenly pretty much every farm in the country becomes unviable. And what about stuff like the National Parks or National Trust land? I can definitely see the case for habitable land - and land with planning permission to prevent land banking by developers - but land that is being worked to provide is with our food or amenity land for our benefit - cannot be included as it would destroy much of the rural economy.

There is a much bigger question about how much we should balance taxation. If starting from scratch, I'd probably abolish CGT and stamp duty, no employee/SE NICs, much higher council/LTV, no fuel duty, a much higher VED or equivalent...

Scott_xP · October 2

It is clear the MPs should eliminate Kemi before the decision reaches the members.

It is not clear the members agree with that assessment.

viewcode · October 2

MaxPB said:

Taz said:

Scott_xP said:
Kemi's job this week was to hide the crazy

Epic fail...
Less than a month ago she was leading with around 45%.

Real crash and burn here.
I think as soon as her take on the minimum wage was publicised we should all have recognised she was out of the running. I really hope that she learns from this experience and matures her thought process and doesn't just say the first thing that pops into her brain because she thinks people will react to it, leave that to YouTube personalities and podcasters.

In her first speech in her shadow cabinet role after the election she warned her opponent that she would "hold them to account". It's a silly phrase that reduced her role to a YouTube reaction video. Her job as a Shadow is to argue for her position and, when it conflicts, against the Govt's (Steve Baker is good on this)

She has strongly-held views that mesh with the membership and expresses them. This is one of the reasons why I bet on her. But she does not understand the roles and if she fails in her attempt I think the Conservatives will have chosen wisely, at least from their POV. @MaxPB is right.

MaxPB · October 2

BartholomewRoberts said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TimS said:

MaxPB said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:
On Cleverly, this seems a strange statement - as I hear it - that an elderly couple in a 4 or 5 bedroom house are prevented from downsizing by the existence of Stamp Duty.

Have I missed something?

https://youtu.be/MiMGGqB8MbA?t=6569
Yes, many of us have been making this exact same point for years.

Stamp Duty is a wretched tax on mobility.

If you are an elderly couple in a 5 bed house and you stay there until you pass on you don't pay a penny of stamp duty. If you downsize, you do.

Those arguing in favour of stamp duty make the fallacious argument that as there's large sums of money involved at the time of sales it is expedient to have a tax then, but the problem is it is a massive disincentive to mobility and discourages behaviour we should encourage.

Far better to abolish stamp duty and replace with an annual land value tax. A couple that downsizes should be decreasing their tax bill, not getting a hefty one they'd otherwise avoid.
They the Cleverly claim was that they had been stuck there for 35 years, which is bizarre.

(I pretty much agree with you on the abolition, but I'd do it as part of making Council Tax 0.5% of property value, which is different to your LVT but of the same ilk.)
It isn't bizarre. Many people stay in "the family home" for decades with no family living with them. Our tax system positively encourages them to stay there and not to move and will have done so for each of those 35 years.
So you don’t believe in the right to own property and do as you wish with it? Bit Communist.
No I do believe in the right to property ownership.

Quite the opposite, only taxing people when they buy or move is not letting them "do as they wish with it".

Taxes should be flat, low and consistent.

Those who buy this year should pay the same taxes as those who bought 50 years ago.
But what’s are you taking when you apply land value tax to people? You’re taxing quiet enjoyment, presumably for the common good.
Why would you apply land value tax to people? You would apply it to land and whoever owns the land pays the tax.

Whether you like it or not the country has running costs. Defence, law and order etc and whatever else Parliament has decreed.

The country only has a finite amount of land, if you own a portion of this countries land you should pay a portion of the running costs of the country.

That's not communism it's perfectly liberal.

You seem to think "quiet enjoyment" should for some reason be taxed less than other enjoyment. I would rather let people do as they please with what they own.

Land should be taxed the same whether the owner chooses to quietly enjoy it, or chooses to work it, or chooses to build on it, or chooses to sell it and the new owner takes responsibility for paying the costs.

Why are you opposed to letting people do as they will with what they own? The state should not get involved, it should take its cut of funding for the running costs of the country but let the owner do as he, she or they pleases to do with it.
For land with houses on I agree with you - as long as the LVT is replacing Council tax and is broadly neutral in its effects. But for land that is being worked for food, assuming you are going to have the same value per acre for all land, then suddenly pretty much every farm in the country becomes unviable. And what about stuff like the National Parks or National Trust land? I can definitely see the case for habitable land - and land with planning permission to prevent land banking by developers - but land that is being worked to provide is with our food or amenity land for our benefit - cannot be included as it would destroy much of the rural economy.
I think that's probably the end goal for Barty, he doesn't seem like he'd be happy until 99% of land is paved over for housing.
LVT obviously varies depending on land value, and agricultural land is way cheaper than residential land. Public amenity land is usually exempt in most versions.
I agree and that is sensible but that is not what Bart is proposing.

"Land should be taxed the same whether the owner chooses to quietly enjoy it, or chooses to work it, or chooses to build on it, or chooses to sell it and the new owner takes responsibility for paying the costs."
It is what I am proposing. It should be taxed the same (based on its value) regardless of how you choose to use it. The value is what is taxed, not what is being done with it.

But the value of the land is intrinsically linked to what the land is used for, if landowners are allowed to self declare what the land should be used for then what's stopping all of the agricultural land being redeveloped for housing because it would represent a massive cash value win for those farmers, what happens to the nation's food security?

BartholomewRoberts · October 2

Scott_xP said:
It is clear the MPs should eliminate Kemi before the decision reaches the members.

It is not clear the members agree with that assessment.

It is clear the MPs will eliminate Kemi before the decision reaches the members.

It is not clear to me that Jenrick is any better.

Whether the members agree or not is moot.

HYUFD · October 2

Scott_xP said:
It is clear the MPs should eliminate Kemi before the decision reaches the members.

It is not clear the members agree with that assessment.

As long as the members still get Jenrick to vote for they would be OK with that

HYUFD · October 2

Stark_Dawning said:
The Tories' problem is that the right-wing media and pundits were absolutely yearning for Kemi. This means that if she doesn't get it they're be disheartened and won't give either of the other two much charity, especially when they get bored with Sir Keir.

GB News and most of the rightwing commentariat now say Jenrick did at least as well as Kemi this afternoon if not better.

Jenrick is also harder on immigration than Kemi, while pushing building new homes and infrastructure etc

LostPassword · October 2

BartholomewRoberts said:

MaxPB said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:
On Cleverly, this seems a strange statement - as I hear it - that an elderly couple in a 4 or 5 bedroom house are prevented from downsizing by the existence of Stamp Duty.

Have I missed something?

https://youtu.be/MiMGGqB8MbA?t=6569
Yes, many of us have been making this exact same point for years.

Stamp Duty is a wretched tax on mobility.

If you are an elderly couple in a 5 bed house and you stay there until you pass on you don't pay a penny of stamp duty. If you downsize, you do.

Those arguing in favour of stamp duty make the fallacious argument that as there's large sums of money involved at the time of sales it is expedient to have a tax then, but the problem is it is a massive disincentive to mobility and discourages behaviour we should encourage.

Far better to abolish stamp duty and replace with an annual land value tax. A couple that downsizes should be decreasing their tax bill, not getting a hefty one they'd otherwise avoid.
They the Cleverly claim was that they had been stuck there for 35 years, which is bizarre.

(I pretty much agree with you on the abolition, but I'd do it as part of making Council Tax 0.5% of property value, which is different to your LVT but of the same ilk.)
It isn't bizarre. Many people stay in "the family home" for decades with no family living with them. Our tax system positively encourages them to stay there and not to move and will have done so for each of those 35 years.
So you don’t believe in the right to own property and do as you wish with it? Bit Communist.
No I do believe in the right to property ownership.

Quite the opposite, only taxing people when they buy or move is not letting them "do as they wish with it".

Taxes should be flat, low and consistent.

Those who buy this year should pay the same taxes as those who bought 50 years ago.
But what’s are you taking when you apply land value tax to people? You’re taxing quiet enjoyment, presumably for the common good.
Why would you apply land value tax to people? You would apply it to land and whoever owns the land pays the tax.

Whether you like it or not the country has running costs. Defence, law and order etc and whatever else Parliament has decreed.

The country only has a finite amount of land, if you own a portion of this countries land you should pay a portion of the running costs of the country.

That's not communism it's perfectly liberal.

You seem to think "quiet enjoyment" should for some reason be taxed less than other enjoyment. I would rather let people do as they please with what they own.

Land should be taxed the same whether the owner chooses to quietly enjoy it, or chooses to work it, or chooses to build on it, or chooses to sell it and the new owner takes responsibility for paying the costs.

Why are you opposed to letting people do as they will with what they own? The state should not get involved, it should take its cut of funding for the running costs of the country but let the owner do as he, she or they pleases to do with it.
For land with houses on I agree with you - as long as the LVT is replacing Council tax and is broadly neutral in its effects. But for land that is being worked for food, assuming you are going to have the same value per acre for all land, then suddenly pretty much every farm in the country becomes unviable. And what about stuff like the National Parks or National Trust land? I can definitely see the case for habitable land - and land with planning permission to prevent land banking by developers - but land that is being worked to provide is with our food or amenity land for our benefit - cannot be included as it would destroy much of the rural economy.
I think that's probably the end goal for Barty, he doesn't seem like he'd be happy until 99% of land is paved over for housing.
I'd be delighted with 6% of land. What use would there be of 99% of the country being housing?

I'll be happy when there's no housing shortage. There is one today, there is no reason why there should be though.

What's your ideal housing density?

BartholomewRoberts · October 2

MaxPB said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TimS said:

MaxPB said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:
On Cleverly, this seems a strange statement - as I hear it - that an elderly couple in a 4 or 5 bedroom house are prevented from downsizing by the existence of Stamp Duty.

Have I missed something?

https://youtu.be/MiMGGqB8MbA?t=6569
Yes, many of us have been making this exact same point for years.

Stamp Duty is a wretched tax on mobility.

If you are an elderly couple in a 5 bed house and you stay there until you pass on you don't pay a penny of stamp duty. If you downsize, you do.

Those arguing in favour of stamp duty make the fallacious argument that as there's large sums of money involved at the time of sales it is expedient to have a tax then, but the problem is it is a massive disincentive to mobility and discourages behaviour we should encourage.

Far better to abolish stamp duty and replace with an annual land value tax. A couple that downsizes should be decreasing their tax bill, not getting a hefty one they'd otherwise avoid.
They the Cleverly claim was that they had been stuck there for 35 years, which is bizarre.

(I pretty much agree with you on the abolition, but I'd do it as part of making Council Tax 0.5% of property value, which is different to your LVT but of the same ilk.)
It isn't bizarre. Many people stay in "the family home" for decades with no family living with them. Our tax system positively encourages them to stay there and not to move and will have done so for each of those 35 years.
So you don’t believe in the right to own property and do as you wish with it? Bit Communist.
No I do believe in the right to property ownership.

Quite the opposite, only taxing people when they buy or move is not letting them "do as they wish with it".

Taxes should be flat, low and consistent.

Those who buy this year should pay the same taxes as those who bought 50 years ago.
But what’s are you taking when you apply land value tax to people? You’re taxing quiet enjoyment, presumably for the common good.
Why would you apply land value tax to people? You would apply it to land and whoever owns the land pays the tax.

Whether you like it or not the country has running costs. Defence, law and order etc and whatever else Parliament has decreed.

The country only has a finite amount of land, if you own a portion of this countries land you should pay a portion of the running costs of the country.

That's not communism it's perfectly liberal.

You seem to think "quiet enjoyment" should for some reason be taxed less than other enjoyment. I would rather let people do as they please with what they own.

Land should be taxed the same whether the owner chooses to quietly enjoy it, or chooses to work it, or chooses to build on it, or chooses to sell it and the new owner takes responsibility for paying the costs.

Why are you opposed to letting people do as they will with what they own? The state should not get involved, it should take its cut of funding for the running costs of the country but let the owner do as he, she or they pleases to do with it.
For land with houses on I agree with you - as long as the LVT is replacing Council tax and is broadly neutral in its effects. But for land that is being worked for food, assuming you are going to have the same value per acre for all land, then suddenly pretty much every farm in the country becomes unviable. And what about stuff like the National Parks or National Trust land? I can definitely see the case for habitable land - and land with planning permission to prevent land banking by developers - but land that is being worked to provide is with our food or amenity land for our benefit - cannot be included as it would destroy much of the rural economy.
I think that's probably the end goal for Barty, he doesn't seem like he'd be happy until 99% of land is paved over for housing.
LVT obviously varies depending on land value, and agricultural land is way cheaper than residential land. Public amenity land is usually exempt in most versions.
I agree and that is sensible but that is not what Bart is proposing.

"Land should be taxed the same whether the owner chooses to quietly enjoy it, or chooses to work it, or chooses to build on it, or chooses to sell it and the new owner takes responsibility for paying the costs."
It is what I am proposing. It should be taxed the same (based on its value) regardless of how you choose to use it. The value is what is taxed, not what is being done with it.
But the value of the land is intrinsically linked to what the land is used for, if landowners are allowed to self declare what the land should be used for then what's stopping all of the agricultural land being redeveloped for housing because it would represent a massive cash value win for those farmers, what happens to the nation's food security?

Supply and demand stops it.

There is no demand for all the country to be housing. Prior to the introduction of the 1948 Act, land was worth only 2% of the price of a house. The actual costs of the house were the other 98%.

Land getting consent today adds 00s to the value of the land, because consent isn't automatic so it is valuable, but if you no longer needed that consent then you wouldn't add 00s to the value of the land anymore because anyone else could do so to so the value margin would collapse.

We should go back to the system we had in the 1930s, prior to the 1948 Act - farming still thrived in the 1930s but construction was at a rate that made houses affordable prior to the war.

BartholomewRoberts · October 2

LostPassword said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MaxPB said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:
On Cleverly, this seems a strange statement - as I hear it - that an elderly couple in a 4 or 5 bedroom house are prevented from downsizing by the existence of Stamp Duty.

Have I missed something?

https://youtu.be/MiMGGqB8MbA?t=6569
Yes, many of us have been making this exact same point for years.

Stamp Duty is a wretched tax on mobility.

If you are an elderly couple in a 5 bed house and you stay there until you pass on you don't pay a penny of stamp duty. If you downsize, you do.

Those arguing in favour of stamp duty make the fallacious argument that as there's large sums of money involved at the time of sales it is expedient to have a tax then, but the problem is it is a massive disincentive to mobility and discourages behaviour we should encourage.

Far better to abolish stamp duty and replace with an annual land value tax. A couple that downsizes should be decreasing their tax bill, not getting a hefty one they'd otherwise avoid.
They the Cleverly claim was that they had been stuck there for 35 years, which is bizarre.

(I pretty much agree with you on the abolition, but I'd do it as part of making Council Tax 0.5% of property value, which is different to your LVT but of the same ilk.)
It isn't bizarre. Many people stay in "the family home" for decades with no family living with them. Our tax system positively encourages them to stay there and not to move and will have done so for each of those 35 years.
So you don’t believe in the right to own property and do as you wish with it? Bit Communist.
No I do believe in the right to property ownership.

Quite the opposite, only taxing people when they buy or move is not letting them "do as they wish with it".

Taxes should be flat, low and consistent.

Those who buy this year should pay the same taxes as those who bought 50 years ago.
But what’s are you taking when you apply land value tax to people? You’re taxing quiet enjoyment, presumably for the common good.
Why would you apply land value tax to people? You would apply it to land and whoever owns the land pays the tax.

Whether you like it or not the country has running costs. Defence, law and order etc and whatever else Parliament has decreed.

The country only has a finite amount of land, if you own a portion of this countries land you should pay a portion of the running costs of the country.

That's not communism it's perfectly liberal.

You seem to think "quiet enjoyment" should for some reason be taxed less than other enjoyment. I would rather let people do as they please with what they own.

Land should be taxed the same whether the owner chooses to quietly enjoy it, or chooses to work it, or chooses to build on it, or chooses to sell it and the new owner takes responsibility for paying the costs.

Why are you opposed to letting people do as they will with what they own? The state should not get involved, it should take its cut of funding for the running costs of the country but let the owner do as he, she or they pleases to do with it.
For land with houses on I agree with you - as long as the LVT is replacing Council tax and is broadly neutral in its effects. But for land that is being worked for food, assuming you are going to have the same value per acre for all land, then suddenly pretty much every farm in the country becomes unviable. And what about stuff like the National Parks or National Trust land? I can definitely see the case for habitable land - and land with planning permission to prevent land banking by developers - but land that is being worked to provide is with our food or amenity land for our benefit - cannot be included as it would destroy much of the rural economy.
I think that's probably the end goal for Barty, he doesn't seem like he'd be happy until 99% of land is paved over for housing.
I'd be delighted with 6% of land. What use would there be of 99% of the country being housing?

I'll be happy when there's no housing shortage. There is one today, there is no reason why there should be though.
What's your ideal housing density?

I don't have one. Let everyone choose their own, free liberal choice.

viewcode · October 2

Eabhal said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:
On Cleverly, this seems a strange statement - as I hear it - that an elderly couple in a 4 or 5 bedroom house are prevented from downsizing by the existence of Stamp Duty.

Have I missed something?

https://youtu.be/MiMGGqB8MbA?t=6569
Yes, many of us have been making this exact same point for years.

Stamp Duty is a wretched tax on mobility.

If you are an elderly couple in a 5 bed house and you stay there until you pass on you don't pay a penny of stamp duty. If you downsize, you do.

Those arguing in favour of stamp duty make the fallacious argument that as there's large sums of money involved at the time of sales it is expedient to have a tax then, but the problem is it is a massive disincentive to mobility and discourages behaviour we should encourage.

Far better to abolish stamp duty and replace with an annual land value tax. A couple that downsizes should be decreasing their tax bill, not getting a hefty one they'd otherwise avoid.
They the Cleverly claim was that they had been stuck there for 35 years, which is bizarre.

(I pretty much agree with you on the abolition, but I'd do it as part of making Council Tax 0.5% of property value, which is different to your LVT but of the same ilk.)
It isn't bizarre. Many people stay in "the family home" for decades with no family living with them. Our tax system positively encourages them to stay there and not to move and will have done so for each of those 35 years.
So you don’t believe in the right to own property and do as you wish with it? Bit Communist.
No I do believe in the right to property ownership.

Quite the opposite, only taxing people when they buy or move is not letting them "do as they wish with it".

Taxes should be flat, low and consistent.

Those who buy this year should pay the same taxes as those who bought 50 years ago.
But what’s are you taking when you apply land value tax to people? You’re taxing quiet enjoyment, presumably for the common good.
Why would you apply land value tax to people? You would apply it to land and whoever owns the land pays the tax.

Whether you like it or not the country has running costs. Defence, law and order etc and whatever else Parliament has decreed.

The country only has a finite amount of land, if you own a portion of this countries land you should pay a portion of the running costs of the country.

That's not communism it's perfectly liberal.

You seem to think "quiet enjoyment" should for some reason be taxed less than other enjoyment. I would rather let people do as they please with what they own.

Land should be taxed the same whether the owner chooses to quietly enjoy it, or chooses to work it, or chooses to build on it, or chooses to sell it and the new owner takes responsibility for paying the costs.

Why are you opposed to letting people do as they will with what they own? The state should not get involved, it should take its cut of funding for the running costs of the country but let the owner do as he, she or they pleases to do with it.
For land with houses on I agree with you - as long as the LVT is replacing Council tax and is broadly neutral in its effects. But for land that is being worked for food, assuming you are going to have the same value per acre for all land, then suddenly pretty much every farm in the country becomes unviable. And what about stuff like the National Parks or National Trust land? I can definitely see the case for habitable land - and land with planning permission to prevent land banking by developers - but land that is being worked to provide is with our food or amenity land for our benefit - cannot be included as it would destroy much of the rural economy.
There is a much bigger question about how much we should balance taxation. If starting from scratch, I'd probably abolish CGT and stamp duty, no employee/SE NICs, much higher council/LTV, no fuel duty, a much higher VED or equivalent...

Viewcode Plan Term 1
1. Abolish income tax
2. Replace with land tax

Sensible policies for a happier Britain

Anabobazina · October 2

Taz said:

Scott_xP said:
Kemi's job this week was to hide the crazy

Epic fail...
Less than a month ago she was leading with around 45%.

Real crash and burn here.

Some of us pointed out she was hopeless, repeatedly, months ago. This is just the rest of the world catching up.

Andy_JS · October 2

Anyone else shocked by the 39% rating for Farage with all voters

MattW · October 2

rottenborough said:

MattW said:
I can't help wondering whether Jenrick has that Anglo-Saxon hoard that vanished from the field next door, in pursuit of the preservation of the native culture.
'Early medieval' hoard please.

I think that Generic Bob would call it "Anglo-Saxon"

.

Scott_xP · October 2

HYUFD said:

Scott_xP said:
It is clear the MPs should eliminate Kemi before the decision reaches the members.

It is not clear the members agree with that assessment.
As long as the members still get Jenrick to vote for they would be OK with that

And I think Labour would be delighted with that as well

Fairliered · October 2

MaxPB said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TimS said:

MaxPB said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:
On Cleverly, this seems a strange statement - as I hear it - that an elderly couple in a 4 or 5 bedroom house are prevented from downsizing by the existence of Stamp Duty.

Have I missed something?

https://youtu.be/MiMGGqB8MbA?t=6569
Yes, many of us have been making this exact same point for years.

Stamp Duty is a wretched tax on mobility.

If you are an elderly couple in a 5 bed house and you stay there until you pass on you don't pay a penny of stamp duty. If you downsize, you do.

Those arguing in favour of stamp duty make the fallacious argument that as there's large sums of money involved at the time of sales it is expedient to have a tax then, but the problem is it is a massive disincentive to mobility and discourages behaviour we should encourage.

Far better to abolish stamp duty and replace with an annual land value tax. A couple that downsizes should be decreasing their tax bill, not getting a hefty one they'd otherwise avoid.
They the Cleverly claim was that they had been stuck there for 35 years, which is bizarre.

(I pretty much agree with you on the abolition, but I'd do it as part of making Council Tax 0.5% of property value, which is different to your LVT but of the same ilk.)
It isn't bizarre. Many people stay in "the family home" for decades with no family living with them. Our tax system positively encourages them to stay there and not to move and will have done so for each of those 35 years.
So you don’t believe in the right to own property and do as you wish with it? Bit Communist.
No I do believe in the right to property ownership.

Quite the opposite, only taxing people when they buy or move is not letting them "do as they wish with it".

Taxes should be flat, low and consistent.

Those who buy this year should pay the same taxes as those who bought 50 years ago.
But what’s are you taking when you apply land value tax to people? You’re taxing quiet enjoyment, presumably for the common good.
Why would you apply land value tax to people? You would apply it to land and whoever owns the land pays the tax.

Whether you like it or not the country has running costs. Defence, law and order etc and whatever else Parliament has decreed.

The country only has a finite amount of land, if you own a portion of this countries land you should pay a portion of the running costs of the country.

That's not communism it's perfectly liberal.

You seem to think "quiet enjoyment" should for some reason be taxed less than other enjoyment. I would rather let people do as they please with what they own.

Land should be taxed the same whether the owner chooses to quietly enjoy it, or chooses to work it, or chooses to build on it, or chooses to sell it and the new owner takes responsibility for paying the costs.

Why are you opposed to letting people do as they will with what they own? The state should not get involved, it should take its cut of funding for the running costs of the country but let the owner do as he, she or they pleases to do with it.
For land with houses on I agree with you - as long as the LVT is replacing Council tax and is broadly neutral in its effects. But for land that is being worked for food, assuming you are going to have the same value per acre for all land, then suddenly pretty much every farm in the country becomes unviable. And what about stuff like the National Parks or National Trust land? I can definitely see the case for habitable land - and land with planning permission to prevent land banking by developers - but land that is being worked to provide is with our food or amenity land for our benefit - cannot be included as it would destroy much of the rural economy.
I think that's probably the end goal for Barty, he doesn't seem like he'd be happy until 99% of land is paved over for housing.
LVT obviously varies depending on land value, and agricultural land is way cheaper than residential land. Public amenity land is usually exempt in most versions.
I agree and that is sensible but that is not what Bart is proposing.

"Land should be taxed the same whether the owner chooses to quietly enjoy it, or chooses to work it, or chooses to build on it, or chooses to sell it and the new owner takes responsibility for paying the costs."
It is what I am proposing. It should be taxed the same (based on its value) regardless of how you choose to use it. The value is what is taxed, not what is being done with it.
But the value of the land is intrinsically linked to what the land is used for, if landowners are allowed to self declare what the land should be used for then what's stopping all of the agricultural land being redeveloped for housing because it would represent a massive cash value win for those farmers, what happens to the nation's food security?

I would introduce a Land Value Tax. I would exempt land actively used for agriculture. I would not exclude set aside land or land designated for housing, retail or industrial activity. I would also drastically reduce planning restrictions on developing non agricultural land, such as brownfield sites.

IanB2 · October 2

The expert’s consensus on US TV this morning seems to be that Vance comes out with improved personal ratings but the GE position remains unaffected.

Richard_Tyndall · October 2

HYUFD said:

Scott_xP said:
It is clear the MPs should eliminate Kemi before the decision reaches the members.

It is not clear the members agree with that assessment.
As long as the members still get Jenrick to vote for they would be OK with that

I am sure Labour would be as well. It makes a Labour victory in 2028/9 far more likely. Jenrick is Johnson without either the popularity or the comedy value.

MattW · October 2

MaxPB said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TimS said:

MaxPB said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:
On Cleverly, this seems a strange statement - as I hear it - that an elderly couple in a 4 or 5 bedroom house are prevented from downsizing by the existence of Stamp Duty.

Have I missed something?

https://youtu.be/MiMGGqB8MbA?t=6569
Yes, many of us have been making this exact same point for years.

Stamp Duty is a wretched tax on mobility.

If you are an elderly couple in a 5 bed house and you stay there until you pass on you don't pay a penny of stamp duty. If you downsize, you do.

Those arguing in favour of stamp duty make the fallacious argument that as there's large sums of money involved at the time of sales it is expedient to have a tax then, but the problem is it is a massive disincentive to mobility and discourages behaviour we should encourage.

Far better to abolish stamp duty and replace with an annual land value tax. A couple that downsizes should be decreasing their tax bill, not getting a hefty one they'd otherwise avoid.
They the Cleverly claim was that they had been stuck there for 35 years, which is bizarre.

(I pretty much agree with you on the abolition, but I'd do it as part of making Council Tax 0.5% of property value, which is different to your LVT but of the same ilk.)
It isn't bizarre. Many people stay in "the family home" for decades with no family living with them. Our tax system positively encourages them to stay there and not to move and will have done so for each of those 35 years.
So you don’t believe in the right to own property and do as you wish with it? Bit Communist.
No I do believe in the right to property ownership.

Quite the opposite, only taxing people when they buy or move is not letting them "do as they wish with it".

Taxes should be flat, low and consistent.

Those who buy this year should pay the same taxes as those who bought 50 years ago.
But what’s are you taking when you apply land value tax to people? You’re taxing quiet enjoyment, presumably for the common good.
Why would you apply land value tax to people? You would apply it to land and whoever owns the land pays the tax.

Whether you like it or not the country has running costs. Defence, law and order etc and whatever else Parliament has decreed.

The country only has a finite amount of land, if you own a portion of this countries land you should pay a portion of the running costs of the country.

That's not communism it's perfectly liberal.

You seem to think "quiet enjoyment" should for some reason be taxed less than other enjoyment. I would rather let people do as they please with what they own.

Land should be taxed the same whether the owner chooses to quietly enjoy it, or chooses to work it, or chooses to build on it, or chooses to sell it and the new owner takes responsibility for paying the costs.

Why are you opposed to letting people do as they will with what they own? The state should not get involved, it should take its cut of funding for the running costs of the country but let the owner do as he, she or they pleases to do with it.
For land with houses on I agree with you - as long as the LVT is replacing Council tax and is broadly neutral in its effects. But for land that is being worked for food, assuming you are going to have the same value per acre for all land, then suddenly pretty much every farm in the country becomes unviable. And what about stuff like the National Parks or National Trust land? I can definitely see the case for habitable land - and land with planning permission to prevent land banking by developers - but land that is being worked to provide is with our food or amenity land for our benefit - cannot be included as it would destroy much of the rural economy.
I think that's probably the end goal for Barty, he doesn't seem like he'd be happy until 99% of land is paved over for housing.
LVT obviously varies depending on land value, and agricultural land is way cheaper than residential land. Public amenity land is usually exempt in most versions.
I agree and that is sensible but that is not what Bart is proposing.

"Land should be taxed the same whether the owner chooses to quietly enjoy it, or chooses to work it, or chooses to build on it, or chooses to sell it and the new owner takes responsibility for paying the costs."
It is what I am proposing. It should be taxed the same (based on its value) regardless of how you choose to use it. The value is what is taxed, not what is being done with it.
But the value of the land is intrinsically linked to what the land is used for, if landowners are allowed to self declare what the land should be used for then what's stopping all of the agricultural land being redeveloped for housing because it would represent a massive cash value win for those farmers, what happens to the nation's food security?

That's actually one of my objections to LVT as often proposed.

The assessment is afaics on the basis of a guestimation by a clipboard-warrior as to what it could potentially be used for.

Much of the time you don't find out until you do ground research and testing as part of an outline planning application, which will cost thousands or tens of thousands.

Andy_JS · October 2

Tom Tugendhat's speech got a rather lukewarm response from the conference hall, as I watch it in full now.

Just after 38 mins.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0Xs-y2X4tU

MattW · October 2

BartholomewRoberts said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:
On Cleverly, this seems a strange statement - as I hear it - that an elderly couple in a 4 or 5 bedroom house are prevented from downsizing by the existence of Stamp Duty.

Have I missed something?

https://youtu.be/MiMGGqB8MbA?t=6569
Yes, many of us have been making this exact same point for years.

Stamp Duty is a wretched tax on mobility.

If you are an elderly couple in a 5 bed house and you stay there until you pass on you don't pay a penny of stamp duty. If you downsize, you do.

Those arguing in favour of stamp duty make the fallacious argument that as there's large sums of money involved at the time of sales it is expedient to have a tax then, but the problem is it is a massive disincentive to mobility and discourages behaviour we should encourage.

Far better to abolish stamp duty and replace with an annual land value tax. A couple that downsizes should be decreasing their tax bill, not getting a hefty one they'd otherwise avoid.
They the Cleverly claim was that they had been stuck there for 35 years, which is bizarre.

(I pretty much agree with you on the abolition, but I'd do it as part of making Council Tax 0.5% of property value, which is different to your LVT but of the same ilk.)
It isn't bizarre. Many people stay in "the family home" for decades with no family living with them. Our tax system positively encourages them to stay there and not to move and will have done so for each of those 35 years.
So you don’t believe in the right to own property and do as you wish with it? Bit Communist.
No I do believe in the right to property ownership.

Quite the opposite, only taxing people when they buy or move is not letting them "do as they wish with it".

Taxes should be flat, low and consistent.

Those who buy this year should pay the same taxes as those who bought 50 years ago.
But what’s are you taking when you apply land value tax to people? You’re taxing quiet enjoyment, presumably for the common good.
Why would you apply land value tax to people? You would apply it to land and whoever owns the land pays the tax.

Whether you like it or not the country has running costs. Defence, law and order etc and whatever else Parliament has decreed.

The country only has a finite amount of land, if you own a portion of this countries land you should pay a portion of the running costs of the country.

That's not communism it's perfectly liberal.

You seem to think "quiet enjoyment" should for some reason be taxed less than other enjoyment. I would rather let people do as they please with what they own.

Land should be taxed the same whether the owner chooses to quietly enjoy it, or chooses to work it, or chooses to build on it, or chooses to sell it and the new owner takes responsibility for paying the costs.

Why are you opposed to letting people do as they will with what they own? The state should not get involved, it should take its cut of funding for the running costs of the country but let the owner do as he, she or they pleases to do with it.
For land with houses on I agree with you - as long as the LVT is replacing Council tax and is broadly neutral in its effects. But for land that is being worked for food, assuming you are going to have the same value per acre for all land, then suddenly pretty much every farm in the country becomes unviable. And what about stuff like the National Parks or National Trust land? I can definitely see the case for habitable land - and land with planning permission to prevent land banking by developers - but land that is being worked to provide is with our food or amenity land for our benefit - cannot be included as it would destroy much of the rural economy.
An LVT should be able to have local land values factored in, which would make rural costs cheaper than residential ones already.

If rural land is productively used it should be able to pay for some of the costs of running the country, but I agree with it being less.

The Treasury could exempt National Trust etc land as appropriate.

The National Trust would not like *that*.

They sometimes make a lorra-lorra cash from developing bits of their land.

Richard_Tyndall · October 2

LostPassword said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:
On Cleverly, this seems a strange statement - as I hear it - that an elderly couple in a 4 or 5 bedroom house are prevented from downsizing by the existence of Stamp Duty.

Have I missed something?

https://youtu.be/MiMGGqB8MbA?t=6569
Yes, many of us have been making this exact same point for years.

Stamp Duty is a wretched tax on mobility.

If you are an elderly couple in a 5 bed house and you stay there until you pass on you don't pay a penny of stamp duty. If you downsize, you do.

Those arguing in favour of stamp duty make the fallacious argument that as there's large sums of money involved at the time of sales it is expedient to have a tax then, but the problem is it is a massive disincentive to mobility and discourages behaviour we should encourage.

Far better to abolish stamp duty and replace with an annual land value tax. A couple that downsizes should be decreasing their tax bill, not getting a hefty one they'd otherwise avoid.
They the Cleverly claim was that they had been stuck there for 35 years, which is bizarre.

(I pretty much agree with you on the abolition, but I'd do it as part of making Council Tax 0.5% of property value, which is different to your LVT but of the same ilk.)
It isn't bizarre. Many people stay in "the family home" for decades with no family living with them. Our tax system positively encourages them to stay there and not to move and will have done so for each of those 35 years.
So you don’t believe in the right to own property and do as you wish with it? Bit Communist.
No I do believe in the right to property ownership.

Quite the opposite, only taxing people when they buy or move is not letting them "do as they wish with it".

Taxes should be flat, low and consistent.

Those who buy this year should pay the same taxes as those who bought 50 years ago.
But what’s are you taking when you apply land value tax to people? You’re taxing quiet enjoyment, presumably for the common good.
Why would you apply land value tax to people? You would apply it to land and whoever owns the land pays the tax.

Whether you like it or not the country has running costs. Defence, law and order etc and whatever else Parliament has decreed.

The country only has a finite amount of land, if you own a portion of this countries land you should pay a portion of the running costs of the country.

That's not communism it's perfectly liberal.

You seem to think "quiet enjoyment" should for some reason be taxed less than other enjoyment. I would rather let people do as they please with what they own.

Land should be taxed the same whether the owner chooses to quietly enjoy it, or chooses to work it, or chooses to build on it, or chooses to sell it and the new owner takes responsibility for paying the costs.

Why are you opposed to letting people do as they will with what they own? The state should not get involved, it should take its cut of funding for the running costs of the country but let the owner do as he, she or they pleases to do with it.
For land with houses on I agree with you - as long as the LVT is replacing Council tax and is broadly neutral in its effects. But for land that is being worked for food, assuming you are going to have the same value per acre for all land, then suddenly pretty much every farm in the country becomes unviable. And what about stuff like the National Parks or National Trust land? I can definitely see the case for habitable land - and land with planning permission to prevent land banking by developers - but land that is being worked to provide is with our food or amenity land for our benefit - cannot be included as it would destroy much of the rural economy.
Why would you assume the same value per acre? That would make it an Acreage Tax, not a Land Value Tax. Completely different kettle of fish.

Ideally a LVT would have the additional benefit of discouraging people from buying agricultural land as an inheritance tax dodge, making agricultural land prices lower, and therefore agriculture more profitable.

The idea that an LVT would make agriculture more profitable is laughable. It would be an additional tax on already hard pressed businesses. The vast majority of agricultural land does not change hands and therefore would be little affected in terms of increasing or decreasing sales. Well apart from the fact that businesses would go bust.

ClippP · October 2

MaxPB said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TimS said:

MaxPB said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:
On Cleverly, this seems a strange statement - as I hear it - that an elderly couple in a 4 or 5 bedroom house are prevented from downsizing by the existence of Stamp Duty.

Have I missed something?

https://youtu.be/MiMGGqB8MbA?t=6569
Yes, many of us have been making this exact same point for years.

Stamp Duty is a wretched tax on mobility.

If you are an elderly couple in a 5 bed house and you stay there until you pass on you don't pay a penny of stamp duty. If you downsize, you do.

Those arguing in favour of stamp duty make the fallacious argument that as there's large sums of money involved at the time of sales it is expedient to have a tax then, but the problem is it is a massive disincentive to mobility and discourages behaviour we should encourage.

Far better to abolish stamp duty and replace with an annual land value tax. A couple that downsizes should be decreasing their tax bill, not getting a hefty one they'd otherwise avoid.
They the Cleverly claim was that they had been stuck there for 35 years, which is bizarre.

(I pretty much agree with you on the abolition, but I'd do it as part of making Council Tax 0.5% of property value, which is different to your LVT but of the same ilk.)
It isn't bizarre. Many people stay in "the family home" for decades with no family living with them. Our tax system positively encourages them to stay there and not to move and will have done so for each of those 35 years.
So you don’t believe in the right to own property and do as you wish with it? Bit Communist.
No I do believe in the right to property ownership.

Quite the opposite, only taxing people when they buy or move is not letting them "do as they wish with it".

Taxes should be flat, low and consistent.

Those who buy this year should pay the same taxes as those who bought 50 years ago.
But what’s are you taking when you apply land value tax to people? You’re taxing quiet enjoyment, presumably for the common good.
Why would you apply land value tax to people? You would apply it to land and whoever owns the land pays the tax.

Whether you like it or not the country has running costs. Defence, law and order etc and whatever else Parliament has decreed.

The country only has a finite amount of land, if you own a portion of this countries land you should pay a portion of the running costs of the country.

That's not communism it's perfectly liberal.

You seem to think "quiet enjoyment" should for some reason be taxed less than other enjoyment. I would rather let people do as they please with what they own.

Land should be taxed the same whether the owner chooses to quietly enjoy it, or chooses to work it, or chooses to build on it, or chooses to sell it and the new owner takes responsibility for paying the costs.

Why are you opposed to letting people do as they will with what they own? The state should not get involved, it should take its cut of funding for the running costs of the country but let the owner do as he, she or they pleases to do with it.
For land with houses on I agree with you - as long as the LVT is replacing Council tax and is broadly neutral in its effects. But for land that is being worked for food, assuming you are going to have the same value per acre for all land, then suddenly pretty much every farm in the country becomes unviable. And what about stuff like the National Parks or National Trust land? I can definitely see the case for habitable land - and land with planning permission to prevent land banking by developers - but land that is being worked to provide is with our food or amenity land for our benefit - cannot be included as it would destroy much of the rural economy.
I think that's probably the end goal for Barty, he doesn't seem like he'd be happy until 99% of land is paved over for housing.
LVT obviously varies depending on land value, and agricultural land is way cheaper than residential land. Public amenity land is usually exempt in most versions.
I agree and that is sensible but that is not what Bart is proposing.

"Land should be taxed the same whether the owner chooses to quietly enjoy it, or chooses to work it, or chooses to build on it, or chooses to sell it and the new owner takes responsibility for paying the costs."
It is what I am proposing. It should be taxed the same (based on its value) regardless of how you choose to use it. The value is what is taxed, not what is being done with it.
But the value of the land is intrinsically linked to what the land is used for, if landowners are allowed to self declare what the land should be used for then what's stopping all of the agricultural land being redeveloped for housing because it would represent a massive cash value win for those farmers, what happens to the nation's food security?

The value of the land is intrinsically linked to what the land could be used for. This is where planning comes in. You have areas which are designated for housing, so they are taxed at that rate - even before a brick has been laid.

On other other hand, you have protected areas where no development will be allowed - perhaps because of vey special newts, for example. Or perhaps there is a listed building, where no further development is possible. The development value of such land is inevitably much lower.

HYUFD · October 2

Andy_JS said:
Tom Tugendhat's speech got a rather lukewarm response from the conference hall, as I watch it in full now.

Just after 38 mins.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0Xs-y2X4tU

He spoke better than Kemi and Cleverly in my view, if not as well as Jenrick did

Fairliered · October 2

Richard_Tyndall said:

LostPassword said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:
On Cleverly, this seems a strange statement - as I hear it - that an elderly couple in a 4 or 5 bedroom house are prevented from downsizing by the existence of Stamp Duty.

Have I missed something?

https://youtu.be/MiMGGqB8MbA?t=6569
Yes, many of us have been making this exact same point for years.

Stamp Duty is a wretched tax on mobility.

If you are an elderly couple in a 5 bed house and you stay there until you pass on you don't pay a penny of stamp duty. If you downsize, you do.

Those arguing in favour of stamp duty make the fallacious argument that as there's large sums of money involved at the time of sales it is expedient to have a tax then, but the problem is it is a massive disincentive to mobility and discourages behaviour we should encourage.

Far better to abolish stamp duty and replace with an annual land value tax. A couple that downsizes should be decreasing their tax bill, not getting a hefty one they'd otherwise avoid.
They the Cleverly claim was that they had been stuck there for 35 years, which is bizarre.

(I pretty much agree with you on the abolition, but I'd do it as part of making Council Tax 0.5% of property value, which is different to your LVT but of the same ilk.)
It isn't bizarre. Many people stay in "the family home" for decades with no family living with them. Our tax system positively encourages them to stay there and not to move and will have done so for each of those 35 years.
So you don’t believe in the right to own property and do as you wish with it? Bit Communist.
No I do believe in the right to property ownership.

Quite the opposite, only taxing people when they buy or move is not letting them "do as they wish with it".

Taxes should be flat, low and consistent.

Those who buy this year should pay the same taxes as those who bought 50 years ago.
But what’s are you taking when you apply land value tax to people? You’re taxing quiet enjoyment, presumably for the common good.
Why would you apply land value tax to people? You would apply it to land and whoever owns the land pays the tax.

Whether you like it or not the country has running costs. Defence, law and order etc and whatever else Parliament has decreed.

The country only has a finite amount of land, if you own a portion of this countries land you should pay a portion of the running costs of the country.

That's not communism it's perfectly liberal.

You seem to think "quiet enjoyment" should for some reason be taxed less than other enjoyment. I would rather let people do as they please with what they own.

Land should be taxed the same whether the owner chooses to quietly enjoy it, or chooses to work it, or chooses to build on it, or chooses to sell it and the new owner takes responsibility for paying the costs.

Why are you opposed to letting people do as they will with what they own? The state should not get involved, it should take its cut of funding for the running costs of the country but let the owner do as he, she or they pleases to do with it.
For land with houses on I agree with you - as long as the LVT is replacing Council tax and is broadly neutral in its effects. But for land that is being worked for food, assuming you are going to have the same value per acre for all land, then suddenly pretty much every farm in the country becomes unviable. And what about stuff like the National Parks or National Trust land? I can definitely see the case for habitable land - and land with planning permission to prevent land banking by developers - but land that is being worked to provide is with our food or amenity land for our benefit - cannot be included as it would destroy much of the rural economy.
Why would you assume the same value per acre? That would make it an Acreage Tax, not a Land Value Tax. Completely different kettle of fish.

Ideally a LVT would have the additional benefit of discouraging people from buying agricultural land as an inheritance tax dodge, making agricultural land prices lower, and therefore agriculture more profitable.
The idea that an LVT would make agriculture more profitable is laughable. It would be an additional tax on already hard pressed businesses. The vast majority of agricultural land does not change hands and therefore would be little affected in terms of increasing or decreasing sales. Well apart from the fact that businesses would go bust.

That’s why I would exclude it, as long as it is actually being used for agricultural purposes. I have this strange old fashioned view that people who work the land know more about it than townies, civil servants and the vast majority of politicians.

nova · October 2

Andy_JS said:
Anyone else shocked by the 39% rating for Farage with all voters

If it's the YouGov most popular politicians, it's always a bit of an odd table.

Their own latest favourability ratings, have him on -35, with 50% having a very unfavourable opinion of him.

The popularity ones are more "just a bit of fun", as they don't give a net figure.

And on top of that, he is just a very clever politician, who can bullshit for England, and in a very "reasonable" way, tells people their meanest instincts are actually just "very normal, and understandable".

https://yougov.co.uk/ratings/politics/popularity/politicians-political-figures/all

https://ygo-assets-websites-editorial-emea.yougov.net/documents/Favourability_and_Labour_government_actions_230924.pdf

LostPassword · October 2

Richard_Tyndall said:

LostPassword said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:
On Cleverly, this seems a strange statement - as I hear it - that an elderly couple in a 4 or 5 bedroom house are prevented from downsizing by the existence of Stamp Duty.

Have I missed something?

https://youtu.be/MiMGGqB8MbA?t=6569
Yes, many of us have been making this exact same point for years.

Stamp Duty is a wretched tax on mobility.

If you are an elderly couple in a 5 bed house and you stay there until you pass on you don't pay a penny of stamp duty. If you downsize, you do.

Those arguing in favour of stamp duty make the fallacious argument that as there's large sums of money involved at the time of sales it is expedient to have a tax then, but the problem is it is a massive disincentive to mobility and discourages behaviour we should encourage.

Far better to abolish stamp duty and replace with an annual land value tax. A couple that downsizes should be decreasing their tax bill, not getting a hefty one they'd otherwise avoid.
They the Cleverly claim was that they had been stuck there for 35 years, which is bizarre.

(I pretty much agree with you on the abolition, but I'd do it as part of making Council Tax 0.5% of property value, which is different to your LVT but of the same ilk.)
It isn't bizarre. Many people stay in "the family home" for decades with no family living with them. Our tax system positively encourages them to stay there and not to move and will have done so for each of those 35 years.
So you don’t believe in the right to own property and do as you wish with it? Bit Communist.
No I do believe in the right to property ownership.

Quite the opposite, only taxing people when they buy or move is not letting them "do as they wish with it".

Taxes should be flat, low and consistent.

Those who buy this year should pay the same taxes as those who bought 50 years ago.
But what’s are you taking when you apply land value tax to people? You’re taxing quiet enjoyment, presumably for the common good.
Why would you apply land value tax to people? You would apply it to land and whoever owns the land pays the tax.

Whether you like it or not the country has running costs. Defence, law and order etc and whatever else Parliament has decreed.

The country only has a finite amount of land, if you own a portion of this countries land you should pay a portion of the running costs of the country.

That's not communism it's perfectly liberal.

You seem to think "quiet enjoyment" should for some reason be taxed less than other enjoyment. I would rather let people do as they please with what they own.

Land should be taxed the same whether the owner chooses to quietly enjoy it, or chooses to work it, or chooses to build on it, or chooses to sell it and the new owner takes responsibility for paying the costs.

Why are you opposed to letting people do as they will with what they own? The state should not get involved, it should take its cut of funding for the running costs of the country but let the owner do as he, she or they pleases to do with it.
For land with houses on I agree with you - as long as the LVT is replacing Council tax and is broadly neutral in its effects. But for land that is being worked for food, assuming you are going to have the same value per acre for all land, then suddenly pretty much every farm in the country becomes unviable. And what about stuff like the National Parks or National Trust land? I can definitely see the case for habitable land - and land with planning permission to prevent land banking by developers - but land that is being worked to provide is with our food or amenity land for our benefit - cannot be included as it would destroy much of the rural economy.
Why would you assume the same value per acre? That would make it an Acreage Tax, not a Land Value Tax. Completely different kettle of fish.

Ideally a LVT would have the additional benefit of discouraging people from buying agricultural land as an inheritance tax dodge, making agricultural land prices lower, and therefore agriculture more profitable.
The idea that an LVT would make agriculture more profitable is laughable. It would be an additional tax on already hard pressed businesses. The vast majority of agricultural land does not change hands and therefore would be little affected in terms of increasing or decreasing sales. Well apart from the fact that businesses would go bust.

34% of agricultural land in the UK is tenanted. Reducing the value of that land, so it was easier for those farmers to buy and own the land they work, would be to their benefit.

WildernessPt2 · October 2

Fairliered said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

LostPassword said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:
On Cleverly, this seems a strange statement - as I hear it - that an elderly couple in a 4 or 5 bedroom house are prevented from downsizing by the existence of Stamp Duty.

Have I missed something?

https://youtu.be/MiMGGqB8MbA?t=6569
Yes, many of us have been making this exact same point for years.

Stamp Duty is a wretched tax on mobility.

If you are an elderly couple in a 5 bed house and you stay there until you pass on you don't pay a penny of stamp duty. If you downsize, you do.

Those arguing in favour of stamp duty make the fallacious argument that as there's large sums of money involved at the time of sales it is expedient to have a tax then, but the problem is it is a massive disincentive to mobility and discourages behaviour we should encourage.

Far better to abolish stamp duty and replace with an annual land value tax. A couple that downsizes should be decreasing their tax bill, not getting a hefty one they'd otherwise avoid.
They the Cleverly claim was that they had been stuck there for 35 years, which is bizarre.

(I pretty much agree with you on the abolition, but I'd do it as part of making Council Tax 0.5% of property value, which is different to your LVT but of the same ilk.)
It isn't bizarre. Many people stay in "the family home" for decades with no family living with them. Our tax system positively encourages them to stay there and not to move and will have done so for each of those 35 years.
So you don’t believe in the right to own property and do as you wish with it? Bit Communist.
No I do believe in the right to property ownership.

Quite the opposite, only taxing people when they buy or move is not letting them "do as they wish with it".

Taxes should be flat, low and consistent.

Those who buy this year should pay the same taxes as those who bought 50 years ago.
But what’s are you taking when you apply land value tax to people? You’re taxing quiet enjoyment, presumably for the common good.
Why would you apply land value tax to people? You would apply it to land and whoever owns the land pays the tax.

Whether you like it or not the country has running costs. Defence, law and order etc and whatever else Parliament has decreed.

The country only has a finite amount of land, if you own a portion of this countries land you should pay a portion of the running costs of the country.

That's not communism it's perfectly liberal.

You seem to think "quiet enjoyment" should for some reason be taxed less than other enjoyment. I would rather let people do as they please with what they own.

Land should be taxed the same whether the owner chooses to quietly enjoy it, or chooses to work it, or chooses to build on it, or chooses to sell it and the new owner takes responsibility for paying the costs.

Why are you opposed to letting people do as they will with what they own? The state should not get involved, it should take its cut of funding for the running costs of the country but let the owner do as he, she or they pleases to do with it.
For land with houses on I agree with you - as long as the LVT is replacing Council tax and is broadly neutral in its effects. But for land that is being worked for food, assuming you are going to have the same value per acre for all land, then suddenly pretty much every farm in the country becomes unviable. And what about stuff like the National Parks or National Trust land? I can definitely see the case for habitable land - and land with planning permission to prevent land banking by developers - but land that is being worked to provide is with our food or amenity land for our benefit - cannot be included as it would destroy much of the rural economy.
Why would you assume the same value per acre? That would make it an Acreage Tax, not a Land Value Tax. Completely different kettle of fish.

Ideally a LVT would have the additional benefit of discouraging people from buying agricultural land as an inheritance tax dodge, making agricultural land prices lower, and therefore agriculture more profitable.
The idea that an LVT would make agriculture more profitable is laughable. It would be an additional tax on already hard pressed businesses. The vast majority of agricultural land does not change hands and therefore would be little affected in terms of increasing or decreasing sales. Well apart from the fact that businesses would go bust.
That’s why I would exclude it, as long as it is actually being used for agricultural purposes. I have this strange old fashioned view that people who work the land know more about it than townies, civil servants and the vast majority of politicians.

That can be applied to many people in many circumstances.

BartholomewRoberts · October 2

WildernessPt2 said:

Fairliered said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

LostPassword said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:
On Cleverly, this seems a strange statement - as I hear it - that an elderly couple in a 4 or 5 bedroom house are prevented from downsizing by the existence of Stamp Duty.

Have I missed something?

https://youtu.be/MiMGGqB8MbA?t=6569
Yes, many of us have been making this exact same point for years.

Stamp Duty is a wretched tax on mobility.

If you are an elderly couple in a 5 bed house and you stay there until you pass on you don't pay a penny of stamp duty. If you downsize, you do.

Those arguing in favour of stamp duty make the fallacious argument that as there's large sums of money involved at the time of sales it is expedient to have a tax then, but the problem is it is a massive disincentive to mobility and discourages behaviour we should encourage.

Far better to abolish stamp duty and replace with an annual land value tax. A couple that downsizes should be decreasing their tax bill, not getting a hefty one they'd otherwise avoid.
They the Cleverly claim was that they had been stuck there for 35 years, which is bizarre.

(I pretty much agree with you on the abolition, but I'd do it as part of making Council Tax 0.5% of property value, which is different to your LVT but of the same ilk.)
It isn't bizarre. Many people stay in "the family home" for decades with no family living with them. Our tax system positively encourages them to stay there and not to move and will have done so for each of those 35 years.
So you don’t believe in the right to own property and do as you wish with it? Bit Communist.
No I do believe in the right to property ownership.

Quite the opposite, only taxing people when they buy or move is not letting them "do as they wish with it".

Taxes should be flat, low and consistent.

Those who buy this year should pay the same taxes as those who bought 50 years ago.
But what’s are you taking when you apply land value tax to people? You’re taxing quiet enjoyment, presumably for the common good.
Why would you apply land value tax to people? You would apply it to land and whoever owns the land pays the tax.

Whether you like it or not the country has running costs. Defence, law and order etc and whatever else Parliament has decreed.

The country only has a finite amount of land, if you own a portion of this countries land you should pay a portion of the running costs of the country.

That's not communism it's perfectly liberal.

You seem to think "quiet enjoyment" should for some reason be taxed less than other enjoyment. I would rather let people do as they please with what they own.

Land should be taxed the same whether the owner chooses to quietly enjoy it, or chooses to work it, or chooses to build on it, or chooses to sell it and the new owner takes responsibility for paying the costs.

Why are you opposed to letting people do as they will with what they own? The state should not get involved, it should take its cut of funding for the running costs of the country but let the owner do as he, she or they pleases to do with it.
For land with houses on I agree with you - as long as the LVT is replacing Council tax and is broadly neutral in its effects. But for land that is being worked for food, assuming you are going to have the same value per acre for all land, then suddenly pretty much every farm in the country becomes unviable. And what about stuff like the National Parks or National Trust land? I can definitely see the case for habitable land - and land with planning permission to prevent land banking by developers - but land that is being worked to provide is with our food or amenity land for our benefit - cannot be included as it would destroy much of the rural economy.
Why would you assume the same value per acre? That would make it an Acreage Tax, not a Land Value Tax. Completely different kettle of fish.

Ideally a LVT would have the additional benefit of discouraging people from buying agricultural land as an inheritance tax dodge, making agricultural land prices lower, and therefore agriculture more profitable.
The idea that an LVT would make agriculture more profitable is laughable. It would be an additional tax on already hard pressed businesses. The vast majority of agricultural land does not change hands and therefore would be little affected in terms of increasing or decreasing sales. Well apart from the fact that businesses would go bust.
That’s why I would exclude it, as long as it is actually being used for agricultural purposes. I have this strange old fashioned view that people who work the land know more about it than townies, civil servants and the vast majority of politicians.
That can be applied to many people in many circumstances.

Hence liberalism.

Big_G_NorthWales · October 2

HYUFD said:

Stark_Dawning said:
The Tories' problem is that the right-wing media and pundits were absolutely yearning for Kemi. This means that if she doesn't get it they're be disheartened and won't give either of the other two much charity, especially when they get bored with Sir Keir.
GB News and most of the rightwing commentariat now say Jenrick did at least as well as Kemi this afternoon if not better.

Jenrick is also harder on immigration than Kemi, while pushing building new homes and infrastructure etc

And that is the point

You want a right wing leader when the conservatives need a leader that appeals across the political divide

Nigel_Foremain · October 2

BartholomewRoberts said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:
On Cleverly, this seems a strange statement - as I hear it - that an elderly couple in a 4 or 5 bedroom house are prevented from downsizing by the existence of Stamp Duty.

Have I missed something?

https://youtu.be/MiMGGqB8MbA?t=6569
Yes, many of us have been making this exact same point for years.

Stamp Duty is a wretched tax on mobility.

If you are an elderly couple in a 5 bed house and you stay there until you pass on you don't pay a penny of stamp duty. If you downsize, you do.

Those arguing in favour of stamp duty make the fallacious argument that as there's large sums of money involved at the time of sales it is expedient to have a tax then, but the problem is it is a massive disincentive to mobility and discourages behaviour we should encourage.

Far better to abolish stamp duty and replace with an annual land value tax. A couple that downsizes should be decreasing their tax bill, not getting a hefty one they'd otherwise avoid.
They the Cleverly claim was that they had been stuck there for 35 years, which is bizarre.

(I pretty much agree with you on the abolition, but I'd do it as part of making Council Tax 0.5% of property value, which is different to your LVT but of the same ilk.)
It isn't bizarre. Many people stay in "the family home" for decades with no family living with them. Our tax system positively encourages them to stay there and not to move and will have done so for each of those 35 years.
So you don’t believe in the right to own property and do as you wish with it? Bit Communist.
No I do believe in the right to property ownership.

Quite the opposite, only taxing people when they buy or move is not letting them "do as they wish with it".

Taxes should be flat, low and consistent.

Those who buy this year should pay the same taxes as those who bought 50 years ago.
But what’s are you taking when you apply land value tax to people? You’re taxing quiet enjoyment, presumably for the common good.
Why would you apply land value tax to people? You would apply it to land and whoever owns the land pays the tax.

Whether you like it or not the country has running costs. Defence, law and order etc and whatever else Parliament has decreed.

The country only has a finite amount of land, if you own a portion of this countries land you should pay a portion of the running costs of the country.

That's not communism it's perfectly liberal.

You seem to think "quiet enjoyment" should for some reason be taxed less than other enjoyment. I would rather let people do as they please with what they own.

Land should be taxed the same whether the owner chooses to quietly enjoy it, or chooses to work it, or chooses to build on it, or chooses to sell it and the new owner takes responsibility for paying the costs.

Why are you opposed to letting people do as they will with what they own? The state should not get involved, it should take its cut of funding for the running costs of the country but let the owner do as he, she or they pleases to do with it.
For land with houses on I agree with you - as long as the LVT is replacing Council tax and is broadly neutral in its effects. But for land that is being worked for food, assuming you are going to have the same value per acre for all land, then suddenly pretty much every farm in the country becomes unviable. And what about stuff like the National Parks or National Trust land? I can definitely see the case for habitable land - and land with planning permission to prevent land banking by developers - but land that is being worked to provide is with our food or amenity land for our benefit - cannot be included as it would destroy much of the rural economy.
An LVT should be able to have local land values factored in, which would make rural costs cheaper than residential ones already.

If rural land is productively used it should be able to pay for some of the costs of running the country, but I agree with it being less.

The Treasury could exempt National Trust etc land as appropriate.

If we moved as I desire to a zonal system then you can include this tax within the zonal system by taxing residentially zoned land more - and I would allow anyone who owns rural land to change their own designation if they choose to develop it to residential (while letting other rural people keep theirs if they so desire) but if they change it then they would become liable for paying the taxes as a consequence of their choice.

I think this appears to be how so many people view tax - it is all well and good to levy taxes just so long as you tax something I do not have. In Bart's case he doesn't have land and is jealous of those that do. A large part of the farming community, even those with large landholdings, have marginal incomes. They work hard and spend their time productively. They can only hope that Rachel Thieves does not read Bart's ideas!

Luckyguy1983 · October 2

rottenborough said:
I wonder if Cleverly will run again after Jenrick has been ousted in two years time?

You do love this "two year's time" bit don't you? But you decline to say why or how a big enough disaster will befall Jenrick not to even give him a shot at a GE. It seems distinctly that the wish is father to the thought I'm afraid.

BartholomewRoberts · October 2

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Stark_Dawning said:
The Tories' problem is that the right-wing media and pundits were absolutely yearning for Kemi. This means that if she doesn't get it they're be disheartened and won't give either of the other two much charity, especially when they get bored with Sir Keir.
GB News and most of the rightwing commentariat now say Jenrick did at least as well as Kemi this afternoon if not better.

Jenrick is also harder on immigration than Kemi, while pushing building new homes and infrastructure etc
And that is the point

You want a right wing leader when the conservatives need a leader that appeals across the political divide

He's always been a blue Corbynite.

The Conservative Party under various leaders for the past century has sought to attract the vote of liberals and not just conservatives. But HYUFD has made clear he doesn't want liberals like myself, even if we're economically right wing. Or people like you G who may have once voted for Blair in a lifetime of voting conservative.

Well now he's got his wish and the election result he wanted.

Luckyguy1983 · October 2

BartholomewRoberts said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Stark_Dawning said:
The Tories' problem is that the right-wing media and pundits were absolutely yearning for Kemi. This means that if she doesn't get it they're be disheartened and won't give either of the other two much charity, especially when they get bored with Sir Keir.
GB News and most of the rightwing commentariat now say Jenrick did at least as well as Kemi this afternoon if not better.

Jenrick is also harder on immigration than Kemi, while pushing building new homes and infrastructure etc
And that is the point

You want a right wing leader when the conservatives need a leader that appeals across the political divide
He's always been a blue Corbynite.

The Conservative Party under various leaders for the past century has sought to attract the vote of liberals and not just conservatives. But HYUFD has made clear he doesn't want liberals like myself, even if we're economically right wing. Or people like you G who may have once voted for Blair in a lifetime of voting conservative.

Well now he's got his wish and the election result he wanted.

What on earth are you chuntering on about? Where and how has HYUFD said anything of the kind?

Scott_xP · October 2

@theobertram

Jenrick would worry Reform, delight Labour and Lib Dems.

Cleverly would worry Lib Dems and Labour more.

Badenoch would worry Reform but also Tory MPs and CCHQ press officers.

Richard_Tyndall · October 2

LostPassword said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

LostPassword said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:
On Cleverly, this seems a strange statement - as I hear it - that an elderly couple in a 4 or 5 bedroom house are prevented from downsizing by the existence of Stamp Duty.

Have I missed something?

https://youtu.be/MiMGGqB8MbA?t=6569
Yes, many of us have been making this exact same point for years.

Stamp Duty is a wretched tax on mobility.

If you are an elderly couple in a 5 bed house and you stay there until you pass on you don't pay a penny of stamp duty. If you downsize, you do.

Those arguing in favour of stamp duty make the fallacious argument that as there's large sums of money involved at the time of sales it is expedient to have a tax then, but the problem is it is a massive disincentive to mobility and discourages behaviour we should encourage.

Far better to abolish stamp duty and replace with an annual land value tax. A couple that downsizes should be decreasing their tax bill, not getting a hefty one they'd otherwise avoid.
They the Cleverly claim was that they had been stuck there for 35 years, which is bizarre.

(I pretty much agree with you on the abolition, but I'd do it as part of making Council Tax 0.5% of property value, which is different to your LVT but of the same ilk.)
It isn't bizarre. Many people stay in "the family home" for decades with no family living with them. Our tax system positively encourages them to stay there and not to move and will have done so for each of those 35 years.
So you don’t believe in the right to own property and do as you wish with it? Bit Communist.
No I do believe in the right to property ownership.

Quite the opposite, only taxing people when they buy or move is not letting them "do as they wish with it".

Taxes should be flat, low and consistent.

Those who buy this year should pay the same taxes as those who bought 50 years ago.
But what’s are you taking when you apply land value tax to people? You’re taxing quiet enjoyment, presumably for the common good.
Why would you apply land value tax to people? You would apply it to land and whoever owns the land pays the tax.

Whether you like it or not the country has running costs. Defence, law and order etc and whatever else Parliament has decreed.

The country only has a finite amount of land, if you own a portion of this countries land you should pay a portion of the running costs of the country.

That's not communism it's perfectly liberal.

You seem to think "quiet enjoyment" should for some reason be taxed less than other enjoyment. I would rather let people do as they please with what they own.

Land should be taxed the same whether the owner chooses to quietly enjoy it, or chooses to work it, or chooses to build on it, or chooses to sell it and the new owner takes responsibility for paying the costs.

Why are you opposed to letting people do as they will with what they own? The state should not get involved, it should take its cut of funding for the running costs of the country but let the owner do as he, she or they pleases to do with it.
For land with houses on I agree with you - as long as the LVT is replacing Council tax and is broadly neutral in its effects. But for land that is being worked for food, assuming you are going to have the same value per acre for all land, then suddenly pretty much every farm in the country becomes unviable. And what about stuff like the National Parks or National Trust land? I can definitely see the case for habitable land - and land with planning permission to prevent land banking by developers - but land that is being worked to provide is with our food or amenity land for our benefit - cannot be included as it would destroy much of the rural economy.
Why would you assume the same value per acre? That would make it an Acreage Tax, not a Land Value Tax. Completely different kettle of fish.

Ideally a LVT would have the additional benefit of discouraging people from buying agricultural land as an inheritance tax dodge, making agricultural land prices lower, and therefore agriculture more profitable.
The idea that an LVT would make agriculture more profitable is laughable. It would be an additional tax on already hard pressed businesses. The vast majority of agricultural land does not change hands and therefore would be little affected in terms of increasing or decreasing sales. Well apart from the fact that businesses would go bust.
34% of agricultural land in the UK is tenanted. Reducing the value of that land, so it was easier for those farmers to buy and own the land they work, would be to their benefit.

Not really. Because there is no reason the land would reduce in value unless through the current owners going bust. And if they can't make it pay then there is no way the tenanted farmer would be able to do so.

Fairliered · October 2

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Stark_Dawning said:
The Tories' problem is that the right-wing media and pundits were absolutely yearning for Kemi. This means that if she doesn't get it they're be disheartened and won't give either of the other two much charity, especially when they get bored with Sir Keir.
GB News and most of the rightwing commentariat now say Jenrick did at least as well as Kemi this afternoon if not better.

Jenrick is also harder on immigration than Kemi, while pushing building new homes and infrastructure etc
And that is the point

You want a right wing leader when the conservatives need a leader that appeals across the political divide

The Conservatives need to get a right wing leader out of their system well before the next election, if they hope to win it. They won’t be happy until they’ve got one, and now, while they’re irrelevant, is the best time. So, Jenrick or Badenoch for a couple of years of further failure, followed by someone more appealing to the centre, is their only hope.

BartholomewRoberts · October 2

Nigel_Foremain said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:
On Cleverly, this seems a strange statement - as I hear it - that an elderly couple in a 4 or 5 bedroom house are prevented from downsizing by the existence of Stamp Duty.

Have I missed something?

https://youtu.be/MiMGGqB8MbA?t=6569
Yes, many of us have been making this exact same point for years.

Stamp Duty is a wretched tax on mobility.

If you are an elderly couple in a 5 bed house and you stay there until you pass on you don't pay a penny of stamp duty. If you downsize, you do.

Those arguing in favour of stamp duty make the fallacious argument that as there's large sums of money involved at the time of sales it is expedient to have a tax then, but the problem is it is a massive disincentive to mobility and discourages behaviour we should encourage.

Far better to abolish stamp duty and replace with an annual land value tax. A couple that downsizes should be decreasing their tax bill, not getting a hefty one they'd otherwise avoid.
They the Cleverly claim was that they had been stuck there for 35 years, which is bizarre.

(I pretty much agree with you on the abolition, but I'd do it as part of making Council Tax 0.5% of property value, which is different to your LVT but of the same ilk.)
It isn't bizarre. Many people stay in "the family home" for decades with no family living with them. Our tax system positively encourages them to stay there and not to move and will have done so for each of those 35 years.
So you don’t believe in the right to own property and do as you wish with it? Bit Communist.
No I do believe in the right to property ownership.

Quite the opposite, only taxing people when they buy or move is not letting them "do as they wish with it".

Taxes should be flat, low and consistent.

Those who buy this year should pay the same taxes as those who bought 50 years ago.
But what’s are you taking when you apply land value tax to people? You’re taxing quiet enjoyment, presumably for the common good.
Why would you apply land value tax to people? You would apply it to land and whoever owns the land pays the tax.

Whether you like it or not the country has running costs. Defence, law and order etc and whatever else Parliament has decreed.

The country only has a finite amount of land, if you own a portion of this countries land you should pay a portion of the running costs of the country.

That's not communism it's perfectly liberal.

You seem to think "quiet enjoyment" should for some reason be taxed less than other enjoyment. I would rather let people do as they please with what they own.

Land should be taxed the same whether the owner chooses to quietly enjoy it, or chooses to work it, or chooses to build on it, or chooses to sell it and the new owner takes responsibility for paying the costs.

Why are you opposed to letting people do as they will with what they own? The state should not get involved, it should take its cut of funding for the running costs of the country but let the owner do as he, she or they pleases to do with it.
For land with houses on I agree with you - as long as the LVT is replacing Council tax and is broadly neutral in its effects. But for land that is being worked for food, assuming you are going to have the same value per acre for all land, then suddenly pretty much every farm in the country becomes unviable. And what about stuff like the National Parks or National Trust land? I can definitely see the case for habitable land - and land with planning permission to prevent land banking by developers - but land that is being worked to provide is with our food or amenity land for our benefit - cannot be included as it would destroy much of the rural economy.
An LVT should be able to have local land values factored in, which would make rural costs cheaper than residential ones already.

If rural land is productively used it should be able to pay for some of the costs of running the country, but I agree with it being less.

The Treasury could exempt National Trust etc land as appropriate.

If we moved as I desire to a zonal system then you can include this tax within the zonal system by taxing residentially zoned land more - and I would allow anyone who owns rural land to change their own designation if they choose to develop it to residential (while letting other rural people keep theirs if they so desire) but if they change it then they would become liable for paying the taxes as a consequence of their choice.
I think this appears to be how so many people view tax - it is all well and good to levy taxes just so long as you tax something I do not have. In Bart's case he doesn't have land and is jealous of those that do. A large part of the farming community, even those with large landholdings, have marginal incomes. They work hard and spend their time productively. They can only hope that Rachel Thieves does not read Bart's ideas!

I do have land, what makes you think I didn't?

Even though I personally dislike flats I recognise that's a matter of personal taste and accept I should pay more for owning a house than a flat, as that's my choice and I'm OK to pay for my own choices.

algarkirk · October 2

Richard_Tyndall said:

TimS said:

MaxPB said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:
On Cleverly, this seems a strange statement - as I hear it - that an elderly couple in a 4 or 5 bedroom house are prevented from downsizing by the existence of Stamp Duty.

Have I missed something?

https://youtu.be/MiMGGqB8MbA?t=6569
Yes, many of us have been making this exact same point for years.

Stamp Duty is a wretched tax on mobility.

If you are an elderly couple in a 5 bed house and you stay there until you pass on you don't pay a penny of stamp duty. If you downsize, you do.

Those arguing in favour of stamp duty make the fallacious argument that as there's large sums of money involved at the time of sales it is expedient to have a tax then, but the problem is it is a massive disincentive to mobility and discourages behaviour we should encourage.

Far better to abolish stamp duty and replace with an annual land value tax. A couple that downsizes should be decreasing their tax bill, not getting a hefty one they'd otherwise avoid.
They the Cleverly claim was that they had been stuck there for 35 years, which is bizarre.

(I pretty much agree with you on the abolition, but I'd do it as part of making Council Tax 0.5% of property value, which is different to your LVT but of the same ilk.)
It isn't bizarre. Many people stay in "the family home" for decades with no family living with them. Our tax system positively encourages them to stay there and not to move and will have done so for each of those 35 years.
So you don’t believe in the right to own property and do as you wish with it? Bit Communist.
No I do believe in the right to property ownership.

Quite the opposite, only taxing people when they buy or move is not letting them "do as they wish with it".

Taxes should be flat, low and consistent.

Those who buy this year should pay the same taxes as those who bought 50 years ago.
But what’s are you taking when you apply land value tax to people? You’re taxing quiet enjoyment, presumably for the common good.
Why would you apply land value tax to people? You would apply it to land and whoever owns the land pays the tax.

Whether you like it or not the country has running costs. Defence, law and order etc and whatever else Parliament has decreed.

The country only has a finite amount of land, if you own a portion of this countries land you should pay a portion of the running costs of the country.

That's not communism it's perfectly liberal.

You seem to think "quiet enjoyment" should for some reason be taxed less than other enjoyment. I would rather let people do as they please with what they own.

Land should be taxed the same whether the owner chooses to quietly enjoy it, or chooses to work it, or chooses to build on it, or chooses to sell it and the new owner takes responsibility for paying the costs.

Why are you opposed to letting people do as they will with what they own? The state should not get involved, it should take its cut of funding for the running costs of the country but let the owner do as he, she or they pleases to do with it.
For land with houses on I agree with you - as long as the LVT is replacing Council tax and is broadly neutral in its effects. But for land that is being worked for food, assuming you are going to have the same value per acre for all land, then suddenly pretty much every farm in the country becomes unviable. And what about stuff like the National Parks or National Trust land? I can definitely see the case for habitable land - and land with planning permission to prevent land banking by developers - but land that is being worked to provide is with our food or amenity land for our benefit - cannot be included as it would destroy much of the rural economy.
I think that's probably the end goal for Barty, he doesn't seem like he'd be happy until 99% of land is paved over for housing.
LVT obviously varies depending on land value, and agricultural land is way cheaper than residential land. Public amenity land is usually exempt in most versions.
I agree and that is sensible but that is not what Bart is proposing.

"Land should be taxed the same whether the owner chooses to quietly enjoy it, or chooses to work it, or chooses to build on it, or chooses to sell it and the new owner takes responsibility for paying the costs."

In the UK, as in many places, in effect many farmers are paid to own land, rather than pay to own it. (Obviously I am simplifying). This in short is for two decent reasons: land management so that the country doesn't go to rack and ruin, and food supply because even though in a free market we would import it all, WWII and reality tell us that isn't a good idea security wise. Taxing it would be unwise to say the least.

A significant proportion of the total land around has no or minimal real cash generative value. Because they are all the places no-one lives (a fortiori) we don't notice them or how much there is. But glance at a map of Scotland for example.

We actually like having lots of fairly relaxed space around for no special purpose except to keep bird life happy. Roseate terns don't pay tax and should not be asked to start.

OTOH London's ghastly and mis-named 'green belt' should be built on and taxed properly

Nigel_Foremain · October 2

Incidentally all those idiots who claimed to be Lion Tamers, sorry accountants, and chastised me for saying that sponging Starmer should pay tax on the lavish gifts he received may want to read this; https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/starmer-exempt-from-paying-48k-tax-on-freebies/ar-AA1rySwf?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=b1f78790b78e422ca5b42d696bca42c5&ei=30.

Apparently it is not as cut and dried as the twat who referred to me as a "beerhall accountant" (lol) made out. Apparently other celebs/"influencers" cannot avoid paying tax on gifts that they receive through doing their job. The exemption appears to be because HMRC doesn't want to take the politicians on.

BartholomewRoberts · October 2

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Stark_Dawning said:
The Tories' problem is that the right-wing media and pundits were absolutely yearning for Kemi. This means that if she doesn't get it they're be disheartened and won't give either of the other two much charity, especially when they get bored with Sir Keir.
GB News and most of the rightwing commentariat now say Jenrick did at least as well as Kemi this afternoon if not better.

Jenrick is also harder on immigration than Kemi, while pushing building new homes and infrastructure etc
And that is the point

You want a right wing leader when the conservatives need a leader that appeals across the political divide
He's always been a blue Corbynite.

The Conservative Party under various leaders for the past century has sought to attract the vote of liberals and not just conservatives. But HYUFD has made clear he doesn't want liberals like myself, even if we're economically right wing. Or people like you G who may have once voted for Blair in a lifetime of voting conservative.

Well now he's got his wish and the election result he wanted.
What on earth are you chuntering on about? Where and how has HYUFD said anything of the kind?

Where - on this website.

How - Frequently.

Selebian · October 2

BartholomewRoberts said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Stark_Dawning said:
The Tories' problem is that the right-wing media and pundits were absolutely yearning for Kemi. This means that if she doesn't get it they're be disheartened and won't give either of the other two much charity, especially when they get bored with Sir Keir.
GB News and most of the rightwing commentariat now say Jenrick did at least as well as Kemi this afternoon if not better.

Jenrick is also harder on immigration than Kemi, while pushing building new homes and infrastructure etc
And that is the point

You want a right wing leader when the conservatives need a leader that appeals across the political divide
He's always been a blue Corbynite.

The Conservative Party under various leaders for the past century has sought to attract the vote of liberals and not just conservatives. But HYUFD has made clear he doesn't want liberals like myself, even if we're economically right wing. Or people like you G who may have once voted for Blair in a lifetime of voting conservative.

Well now he's got his wish and the election result he wanted.

Hasn't HYUFD expressed a preference for Tom T? He may not be an election winner - I'm not sure any of the four are - but he's probably the most centrist candidate. As someone - Nigel B? - observed yesterday, HYUFD now seems to be on the moderate side of the Conservative Party, although it's quite possible it's not he who has moved!

Nigel_Foremain · October 2

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:
On Cleverly, this seems a strange statement - as I hear it - that an elderly couple in a 4 or 5 bedroom house are prevented from downsizing by the existence of Stamp Duty.

Have I missed something?

https://youtu.be/MiMGGqB8MbA?t=6569
Yes, many of us have been making this exact same point for years.

Stamp Duty is a wretched tax on mobility.

If you are an elderly couple in a 5 bed house and you stay there until you pass on you don't pay a penny of stamp duty. If you downsize, you do.

Those arguing in favour of stamp duty make the fallacious argument that as there's large sums of money involved at the time of sales it is expedient to have a tax then, but the problem is it is a massive disincentive to mobility and discourages behaviour we should encourage.

Far better to abolish stamp duty and replace with an annual land value tax. A couple that downsizes should be decreasing their tax bill, not getting a hefty one they'd otherwise avoid.
They the Cleverly claim was that they had been stuck there for 35 years, which is bizarre.

(I pretty much agree with you on the abolition, but I'd do it as part of making Council Tax 0.5% of property value, which is different to your LVT but of the same ilk.)
It isn't bizarre. Many people stay in "the family home" for decades with no family living with them. Our tax system positively encourages them to stay there and not to move and will have done so for each of those 35 years.
So you don’t believe in the right to own property and do as you wish with it? Bit Communist.
No I do believe in the right to property ownership.

Quite the opposite, only taxing people when they buy or move is not letting them "do as they wish with it".

Taxes should be flat, low and consistent.

Those who buy this year should pay the same taxes as those who bought 50 years ago.
But what’s are you taking when you apply land value tax to people? You’re taxing quiet enjoyment, presumably for the common good.
Why would you apply land value tax to people? You would apply it to land and whoever owns the land pays the tax.

Whether you like it or not the country has running costs. Defence, law and order etc and whatever else Parliament has decreed.

The country only has a finite amount of land, if you own a portion of this countries land you should pay a portion of the running costs of the country.

That's not communism it's perfectly liberal.

You seem to think "quiet enjoyment" should for some reason be taxed less than other enjoyment. I would rather let people do as they please with what they own.

Land should be taxed the same whether the owner chooses to quietly enjoy it, or chooses to work it, or chooses to build on it, or chooses to sell it and the new owner takes responsibility for paying the costs.

Why are you opposed to letting people do as they will with what they own? The state should not get involved, it should take its cut of funding for the running costs of the country but let the owner do as he, she or they pleases to do with it.
For land with houses on I agree with you - as long as the LVT is replacing Council tax and is broadly neutral in its effects. But for land that is being worked for food, assuming you are going to have the same value per acre for all land, then suddenly pretty much every farm in the country becomes unviable. And what about stuff like the National Parks or National Trust land? I can definitely see the case for habitable land - and land with planning permission to prevent land banking by developers - but land that is being worked to provide is with our food or amenity land for our benefit - cannot be included as it would destroy much of the rural economy.
An LVT should be able to have local land values factored in, which would make rural costs cheaper than residential ones already.

If rural land is productively used it should be able to pay for some of the costs of running the country, but I agree with it being less.

The Treasury could exempt National Trust etc land as appropriate.

If we moved as I desire to a zonal system then you can include this tax within the zonal system by taxing residentially zoned land more - and I would allow anyone who owns rural land to change their own designation if they choose to develop it to residential (while letting other rural people keep theirs if they so desire) but if they change it then they would become liable for paying the taxes as a consequence of their choice.
I think this appears to be how so many people view tax - it is all well and good to levy taxes just so long as you tax something I do not have. In Bart's case he doesn't have land and is jealous of those that do. A large part of the farming community, even those with large landholdings, have marginal incomes. They work hard and spend their time productively. They can only hope that Rachel Thieves does not read Bart's ideas!
I do have land, what makes you think I didn't?

Even though I personally dislike flats I recognise that's a matter of personal taste and accept I should pay more for owning a house than a flat, as that's my choice and I'm OK to pay for my own choices.

No offence, but "having land" normally means more than a front and back garden, and having it on a large mortgage!

Big_G_NorthWales · October 2

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Stark_Dawning said:
The Tories' problem is that the right-wing media and pundits were absolutely yearning for Kemi. This means that if she doesn't get it they're be disheartened and won't give either of the other two much charity, especially when they get bored with Sir Keir.
GB News and most of the rightwing commentariat now say Jenrick did at least as well as Kemi this afternoon if not better.

Jenrick is also harder on immigration than Kemi, while pushing building new homes and infrastructure etc
And that is the point

You want a right wing leader when the conservatives need a leader that appeals across the political divide
He's always been a blue Corbynite.

The Conservative Party under various leaders for the past century has sought to attract the vote of liberals and not just conservatives. But HYUFD has made clear he doesn't want liberals like myself, even if we're economically right wing. Or people like you G who may have once voted for Blair in a lifetime of voting conservative.

Well now he's got his wish and the election result he wanted.
What on earth are you chuntering on about? Where and how has HYUFD said anything of the kind?

I have had a lifetime of support for the conservatives including activism at elections, apart from recently, but because I voted for Blair @HYUFD has been quite open in saying I am not a conservative

He is of the right and blue Corbynite is a fair description of him

Selebian · October 2

Scott_xP said:
@theobertram

Jenrick would worry Reform, delight Labour and Lib Dems.

Cleverly would worry Lib Dems and Labour more.

Badenoch would worry Reform but also Tory MPs and CCHQ press officers.

Poor Tom T, not even getting a mention

BartholomewRoberts · October 2

Nigel_Foremain said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:
On Cleverly, this seems a strange statement - as I hear it - that an elderly couple in a 4 or 5 bedroom house are prevented from downsizing by the existence of Stamp Duty.

Have I missed something?

https://youtu.be/MiMGGqB8MbA?t=6569
Yes, many of us have been making this exact same point for years.

Stamp Duty is a wretched tax on mobility.

If you are an elderly couple in a 5 bed house and you stay there until you pass on you don't pay a penny of stamp duty. If you downsize, you do.

Those arguing in favour of stamp duty make the fallacious argument that as there's large sums of money involved at the time of sales it is expedient to have a tax then, but the problem is it is a massive disincentive to mobility and discourages behaviour we should encourage.

Far better to abolish stamp duty and replace with an annual land value tax. A couple that downsizes should be decreasing their tax bill, not getting a hefty one they'd otherwise avoid.
They the Cleverly claim was that they had been stuck there for 35 years, which is bizarre.

(I pretty much agree with you on the abolition, but I'd do it as part of making Council Tax 0.5% of property value, which is different to your LVT but of the same ilk.)
It isn't bizarre. Many people stay in "the family home" for decades with no family living with them. Our tax system positively encourages them to stay there and not to move and will have done so for each of those 35 years.
So you don’t believe in the right to own property and do as you wish with it? Bit Communist.
No I do believe in the right to property ownership.

Quite the opposite, only taxing people when they buy or move is not letting them "do as they wish with it".

Taxes should be flat, low and consistent.

Those who buy this year should pay the same taxes as those who bought 50 years ago.
But what’s are you taking when you apply land value tax to people? You’re taxing quiet enjoyment, presumably for the common good.
Why would you apply land value tax to people? You would apply it to land and whoever owns the land pays the tax.

Whether you like it or not the country has running costs. Defence, law and order etc and whatever else Parliament has decreed.

The country only has a finite amount of land, if you own a portion of this countries land you should pay a portion of the running costs of the country.

That's not communism it's perfectly liberal.

You seem to think "quiet enjoyment" should for some reason be taxed less than other enjoyment. I would rather let people do as they please with what they own.

Land should be taxed the same whether the owner chooses to quietly enjoy it, or chooses to work it, or chooses to build on it, or chooses to sell it and the new owner takes responsibility for paying the costs.

Why are you opposed to letting people do as they will with what they own? The state should not get involved, it should take its cut of funding for the running costs of the country but let the owner do as he, she or they pleases to do with it.
For land with houses on I agree with you - as long as the LVT is replacing Council tax and is broadly neutral in its effects. But for land that is being worked for food, assuming you are going to have the same value per acre for all land, then suddenly pretty much every farm in the country becomes unviable. And what about stuff like the National Parks or National Trust land? I can definitely see the case for habitable land - and land with planning permission to prevent land banking by developers - but land that is being worked to provide is with our food or amenity land for our benefit - cannot be included as it would destroy much of the rural economy.
An LVT should be able to have local land values factored in, which would make rural costs cheaper than residential ones already.

If rural land is productively used it should be able to pay for some of the costs of running the country, but I agree with it being less.

The Treasury could exempt National Trust etc land as appropriate.

If we moved as I desire to a zonal system then you can include this tax within the zonal system by taxing residentially zoned land more - and I would allow anyone who owns rural land to change their own designation if they choose to develop it to residential (while letting other rural people keep theirs if they so desire) but if they change it then they would become liable for paying the taxes as a consequence of their choice.
I think this appears to be how so many people view tax - it is all well and good to levy taxes just so long as you tax something I do not have. In Bart's case he doesn't have land and is jealous of those that do. A large part of the farming community, even those with large landholdings, have marginal incomes. They work hard and spend their time productively. They can only hope that Rachel Thieves does not read Bart's ideas!
I do have land, what makes you think I didn't?

Even though I personally dislike flats I recognise that's a matter of personal taste and accept I should pay more for owning a house than a flat, as that's my choice and I'm OK to pay for my own choices.
No offence, but "having land" normally means more than a front and back garden, and having it on a large mortgage!

You're pretty ignorant then, most tenants would be quite happy with nothing more than house of their own with or without a front and back garden to go with it.

If you have more, then that's your choice and you should pay for your choices just as I do mine.

And as was said at the start of the discussion, my proposal is not a tax hike but revenue neutral so that Stamp Duty should be eliminated so that rather than merely taxing those who are mobile people should pay lower but more consistent taxes.

Making taxes low and consistent is not a bad thing. Taxing mobility is a bad thing.

Nigel_Foremain · October 2

Richard_Tyndall said:

LostPassword said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

LostPassword said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:
On Cleverly, this seems a strange statement - as I hear it - that an elderly couple in a 4 or 5 bedroom house are prevented from downsizing by the existence of Stamp Duty.

Have I missed something?

https://youtu.be/MiMGGqB8MbA?t=6569
Yes, many of us have been making this exact same point for years.

Stamp Duty is a wretched tax on mobility.

If you are an elderly couple in a 5 bed house and you stay there until you pass on you don't pay a penny of stamp duty. If you downsize, you do.

Those arguing in favour of stamp duty make the fallacious argument that as there's large sums of money involved at the time of sales it is expedient to have a tax then, but the problem is it is a massive disincentive to mobility and discourages behaviour we should encourage.

Far better to abolish stamp duty and replace with an annual land value tax. A couple that downsizes should be decreasing their tax bill, not getting a hefty one they'd otherwise avoid.
They the Cleverly claim was that they had been stuck there for 35 years, which is bizarre.

(I pretty much agree with you on the abolition, but I'd do it as part of making Council Tax 0.5% of property value, which is different to your LVT but of the same ilk.)
It isn't bizarre. Many people stay in "the family home" for decades with no family living with them. Our tax system positively encourages them to stay there and not to move and will have done so for each of those 35 years.
So you don’t believe in the right to own property and do as you wish with it? Bit Communist.
No I do believe in the right to property ownership.

Quite the opposite, only taxing people when they buy or move is not letting them "do as they wish with it".

Taxes should be flat, low and consistent.

Those who buy this year should pay the same taxes as those who bought 50 years ago.
But what’s are you taking when you apply land value tax to people? You’re taxing quiet enjoyment, presumably for the common good.
Why would you apply land value tax to people? You would apply it to land and whoever owns the land pays the tax.

Whether you like it or not the country has running costs. Defence, law and order etc and whatever else Parliament has decreed.

The country only has a finite amount of land, if you own a portion of this countries land you should pay a portion of the running costs of the country.

That's not communism it's perfectly liberal.

You seem to think "quiet enjoyment" should for some reason be taxed less than other enjoyment. I would rather let people do as they please with what they own.

Land should be taxed the same whether the owner chooses to quietly enjoy it, or chooses to work it, or chooses to build on it, or chooses to sell it and the new owner takes responsibility for paying the costs.

Why are you opposed to letting people do as they will with what they own? The state should not get involved, it should take its cut of funding for the running costs of the country but let the owner do as he, she or they pleases to do with it.
For land with houses on I agree with you - as long as the LVT is replacing Council tax and is broadly neutral in its effects. But for land that is being worked for food, assuming you are going to have the same value per acre for all land, then suddenly pretty much every farm in the country becomes unviable. And what about stuff like the National Parks or National Trust land? I can definitely see the case for habitable land - and land with planning permission to prevent land banking by developers - but land that is being worked to provide is with our food or amenity land for our benefit - cannot be included as it would destroy much of the rural economy.
Why would you assume the same value per acre? That would make it an Acreage Tax, not a Land Value Tax. Completely different kettle of fish.

Ideally a LVT would have the additional benefit of discouraging people from buying agricultural land as an inheritance tax dodge, making agricultural land prices lower, and therefore agriculture more profitable.
The idea that an LVT would make agriculture more profitable is laughable. It would be an additional tax on already hard pressed businesses. The vast majority of agricultural land does not change hands and therefore would be little affected in terms of increasing or decreasing sales. Well apart from the fact that businesses would go bust.
34% of agricultural land in the UK is tenanted. Reducing the value of that land, so it was easier for those farmers to buy and own the land they work, would be to their benefit.
Not really. Because there is no reason the land would reduce in value unless through the current owners going bust. And if they can't make it pay then there is no way the tenanted farmer would be able to do so.

Oh dear, I have seen some simplistic analysis on here (I am sure we are all guilty sometimes) but that one by @LostPassword takes the biscuit. Oh, the poor farmers can't afford bread? Let them eat cake.

numbertwelve · October 2

Luckyguy1983 said:

rottenborough said:
I wonder if Cleverly will run again after Jenrick has been ousted in two years time?
You do love this "two year's time" bit don't you? But you decline to say why or how a big enough disaster will befall Jenrick not to even give him a shot at a GE. It seems distinctly that the wish is father to the thought I'm afraid.

We also live in a political system where the most popular party is polling around 30% of the vote.

I still find this tendency to view everything on a left/right/centre perspective rather odd. There is no rule that only middle-of-the-road centrism will always carry the day.

HYUFD · October 2

Selebian said:

Scott_xP said:
@theobertram

Jenrick would worry Reform, delight Labour and Lib Dems.

Cleverly would worry Lib Dems and Labour more.

Badenoch would worry Reform but also Tory MPs and CCHQ press officers.
Poor Tom T, not even getting a mention

He would worry the LDs more than Cleverly in my view, Jenrick should also worry redwall Labour MPs

HYUFD · October 2

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Stark_Dawning said:
The Tories' problem is that the right-wing media and pundits were absolutely yearning for Kemi. This means that if she doesn't get it they're be disheartened and won't give either of the other two much charity, especially when they get bored with Sir Keir.
GB News and most of the rightwing commentariat now say Jenrick did at least as well as Kemi this afternoon if not better.

Jenrick is also harder on immigration than Kemi, while pushing building new homes and infrastructure etc
And that is the point

You want a right wing leader when the conservatives need a leader that appeals across the political divide
He's always been a blue Corbynite.

The Conservative Party under various leaders for the past century has sought to attract the vote of liberals and not just conservatives. But HYUFD has made clear he doesn't want liberals like myself, even if we're economically right wing. Or people like you G who may have once voted for Blair in a lifetime of voting conservative.

Well now he's got his wish and the election result he wanted.
What on earth are you chuntering on about? Where and how has HYUFD said anything of the kind?
I have had a lifetime of support for the conservatives including activism at elections, apart from recently, but because I voted for Blair @HYUFD has been quite open in saying I am not a conservative

He is of the right and blue Corbynite is a fair description of him

If I was a blue Corbynite I would not have voted for Sunak last time and would not be backing Tugendhat this time.

I am if anything more centrist than most Tory members

Dumbosaurus · October 2

tuggy surely a back at these prices, I have been as an insurance bet. hilariously he traded 700 today (although only about 6p).

don't see trades in the other three although fwiw I think kemi and jenrick basically right, cleverly a bit too short and I have taken some of my back of him off - I don't agree with those who say that you should always let a bet ride if you wouldn't lay - it doesn't account for fuzzy grey zones of uncertainty in your own judgement

Scott_xP · October 2

Selebian said:

Scott_xP said:
@theobertram

Jenrick would worry Reform, delight Labour and Lib Dems.

Cleverly would worry Lib Dems and Labour more.

Badenoch would worry Reform but also Tory MPs and CCHQ press officers.
Poor Tom T, not even getting a mention

Who ?

Malmesbury · October 2

Nigel_Foremain said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

LostPassword said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

LostPassword said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:
On Cleverly, this seems a strange statement - as I hear it - that an elderly couple in a 4 or 5 bedroom house are prevented from downsizing by the existence of Stamp Duty.

Have I missed something?

https://youtu.be/MiMGGqB8MbA?t=6569
Yes, many of us have been making this exact same point for years.

Stamp Duty is a wretched tax on mobility.

If you are an elderly couple in a 5 bed house and you stay there until you pass on you don't pay a penny of stamp duty. If you downsize, you do.

Those arguing in favour of stamp duty make the fallacious argument that as there's large sums of money involved at the time of sales it is expedient to have a tax then, but the problem is it is a massive disincentive to mobility and discourages behaviour we should encourage.

Far better to abolish stamp duty and replace with an annual land value tax. A couple that downsizes should be decreasing their tax bill, not getting a hefty one they'd otherwise avoid.
They the Cleverly claim was that they had been stuck there for 35 years, which is bizarre.

(I pretty much agree with you on the abolition, but I'd do it as part of making Council Tax 0.5% of property value, which is different to your LVT but of the same ilk.)
It isn't bizarre. Many people stay in "the family home" for decades with no family living with them. Our tax system positively encourages them to stay there and not to move and will have done so for each of those 35 years.
So you don’t believe in the right to own property and do as you wish with it? Bit Communist.
No I do believe in the right to property ownership.

Quite the opposite, only taxing people when they buy or move is not letting them "do as they wish with it".

Taxes should be flat, low and consistent.

Those who buy this year should pay the same taxes as those who bought 50 years ago.
But what’s are you taking when you apply land value tax to people? You’re taxing quiet enjoyment, presumably for the common good.
Why would you apply land value tax to people? You would apply it to land and whoever owns the land pays the tax.

Whether you like it or not the country has running costs. Defence, law and order etc and whatever else Parliament has decreed.

The country only has a finite amount of land, if you own a portion of this countries land you should pay a portion of the running costs of the country.

That's not communism it's perfectly liberal.

You seem to think "quiet enjoyment" should for some reason be taxed less than other enjoyment. I would rather let people do as they please with what they own.

Land should be taxed the same whether the owner chooses to quietly enjoy it, or chooses to work it, or chooses to build on it, or chooses to sell it and the new owner takes responsibility for paying the costs.

Why are you opposed to letting people do as they will with what they own? The state should not get involved, it should take its cut of funding for the running costs of the country but let the owner do as he, she or they pleases to do with it.
For land with houses on I agree with you - as long as the LVT is replacing Council tax and is broadly neutral in its effects. But for land that is being worked for food, assuming you are going to have the same value per acre for all land, then suddenly pretty much every farm in the country becomes unviable. And what about stuff like the National Parks or National Trust land? I can definitely see the case for habitable land - and land with planning permission to prevent land banking by developers - but land that is being worked to provide is with our food or amenity land for our benefit - cannot be included as it would destroy much of the rural economy.
Why would you assume the same value per acre? That would make it an Acreage Tax, not a Land Value Tax. Completely different kettle of fish.

Ideally a LVT would have the additional benefit of discouraging people from buying agricultural land as an inheritance tax dodge, making agricultural land prices lower, and therefore agriculture more profitable.
The idea that an LVT would make agriculture more profitable is laughable. It would be an additional tax on already hard pressed businesses. The vast majority of agricultural land does not change hands and therefore would be little affected in terms of increasing or decreasing sales. Well apart from the fact that businesses would go bust.
34% of agricultural land in the UK is tenanted. Reducing the value of that land, so it was easier for those farmers to buy and own the land they work, would be to their benefit.
Not really. Because there is no reason the land would reduce in value unless through the current owners going bust. And if they can't make it pay then there is no way the tenanted farmer would be able to do so.
Oh dear, I have seen some simplistic analysis on here (I am sure we are all guilty sometimes) but that one by @LostPassword takes the biscuit. Oh, the poor farmers can't afford bread? Let them eat cake.

Brioche, Shirley?

Nigel_Foremain · October 2

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:
On Cleverly, this seems a strange statement - as I hear it - that an elderly couple in a 4 or 5 bedroom house are prevented from downsizing by the existence of Stamp Duty.

Have I missed something?

https://youtu.be/MiMGGqB8MbA?t=6569
Yes, many of us have been making this exact same point for years.

Stamp Duty is a wretched tax on mobility.

If you are an elderly couple in a 5 bed house and you stay there until you pass on you don't pay a penny of stamp duty. If you downsize, you do.

Those arguing in favour of stamp duty make the fallacious argument that as there's large sums of money involved at the time of sales it is expedient to have a tax then, but the problem is it is a massive disincentive to mobility and discourages behaviour we should encourage.

Far better to abolish stamp duty and replace with an annual land value tax. A couple that downsizes should be decreasing their tax bill, not getting a hefty one they'd otherwise avoid.
They the Cleverly claim was that they had been stuck there for 35 years, which is bizarre.

(I pretty much agree with you on the abolition, but I'd do it as part of making Council Tax 0.5% of property value, which is different to your LVT but of the same ilk.)
It isn't bizarre. Many people stay in "the family home" for decades with no family living with them. Our tax system positively encourages them to stay there and not to move and will have done so for each of those 35 years.
So you don’t believe in the right to own property and do as you wish with it? Bit Communist.
No I do believe in the right to property ownership.

Quite the opposite, only taxing people when they buy or move is not letting them "do as they wish with it".

Taxes should be flat, low and consistent.

Those who buy this year should pay the same taxes as those who bought 50 years ago.
But what’s are you taking when you apply land value tax to people? You’re taxing quiet enjoyment, presumably for the common good.
Why would you apply land value tax to people? You would apply it to land and whoever owns the land pays the tax.

Whether you like it or not the country has running costs. Defence, law and order etc and whatever else Parliament has decreed.

The country only has a finite amount of land, if you own a portion of this countries land you should pay a portion of the running costs of the country.

That's not communism it's perfectly liberal.

You seem to think "quiet enjoyment" should for some reason be taxed less than other enjoyment. I would rather let people do as they please with what they own.

Land should be taxed the same whether the owner chooses to quietly enjoy it, or chooses to work it, or chooses to build on it, or chooses to sell it and the new owner takes responsibility for paying the costs.

Why are you opposed to letting people do as they will with what they own? The state should not get involved, it should take its cut of funding for the running costs of the country but let the owner do as he, she or they pleases to do with it.
For land with houses on I agree with you - as long as the LVT is replacing Council tax and is broadly neutral in its effects. But for land that is being worked for food, assuming you are going to have the same value per acre for all land, then suddenly pretty much every farm in the country becomes unviable. And what about stuff like the National Parks or National Trust land? I can definitely see the case for habitable land - and land with planning permission to prevent land banking by developers - but land that is being worked to provide is with our food or amenity land for our benefit - cannot be included as it would destroy much of the rural economy.
An LVT should be able to have local land values factored in, which would make rural costs cheaper than residential ones already.

If rural land is productively used it should be able to pay for some of the costs of running the country, but I agree with it being less.

The Treasury could exempt National Trust etc land as appropriate.

If we moved as I desire to a zonal system then you can include this tax within the zonal system by taxing residentially zoned land more - and I would allow anyone who owns rural land to change their own designation if they choose to develop it to residential (while letting other rural people keep theirs if they so desire) but if they change it then they would become liable for paying the taxes as a consequence of their choice.
I think this appears to be how so many people view tax - it is all well and good to levy taxes just so long as you tax something I do not have. In Bart's case he doesn't have land and is jealous of those that do. A large part of the farming community, even those with large landholdings, have marginal incomes. They work hard and spend their time productively. They can only hope that Rachel Thieves does not read Bart's ideas!
I do have land, what makes you think I didn't?

Even though I personally dislike flats I recognise that's a matter of personal taste and accept I should pay more for owning a house than a flat, as that's my choice and I'm OK to pay for my own choices.
No offence, but "having land" normally means more than a front and back garden, and having it on a large mortgage!
You're pretty ignorant then, most tenants would be quite happy with nothing more than house of their own with or without a front and back garden to go with it.

If you have more, then that's your choice and you should pay for your choices just as I do mine.

And as was said at the start of the discussion, my proposal is not a tax hike but revenue neutral so that Stamp Duty should be eliminated so that rather than merely taxing those who are mobile people should pay lower but more consistent taxes.

Making taxes low and consistent is not a bad thing. Taxing mobility is a bad thing.

Well indeed Barty old bean, agree with your last statements, but taxing the farming community because you are jealous of their capital is incredibly dumb and highly simplistic. You have been banging this "through your own prism" drum for a long time. Glad you got on the ladder, well done. Now go and try as work as hard as a farmer does when many of their annual incomes work out to be less than minimum wage

numbertwelve · October 2

For what it’s worth, I do think the Tories could win from the right; or at least build a voter coalition on the right that puts them in contention.

But - I am not convinced that the person to do that is either Robert Jenrick or Kemi Badenoch. Jenrick is a bit slimy and unlikeable. Badenoch isn’t disciplined enough in her messaging.

HYUFD · October 2

numbertwelve said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

rottenborough said:
I wonder if Cleverly will run again after Jenrick has been ousted in two years time?
You do love this "two year's time" bit don't you? But you decline to say why or how a big enough disaster will befall Jenrick not to even give him a shot at a GE. It seems distinctly that the wish is father to the thought I'm afraid.
We also live in a political system where the most popular party is polling around 30% of the vote.

I still find this tendency to view everything on a left/right/centre perspective rather odd. There is no rule that only middle-of-the-road centrism will always carry the day.

Indeed, it didn't in 1945 and 1950 and from 1979-1987, nor in 2019 and nearly didn't in 2017.

Heath was also more centrist than Wilson when Wilson beat him in 1966 and 1974

maaarsh · October 2

BartholomewRoberts said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Stark_Dawning said:
The Tories' problem is that the right-wing media and pundits were absolutely yearning for Kemi. This means that if she doesn't get it they're be disheartened and won't give either of the other two much charity, especially when they get bored with Sir Keir.
GB News and most of the rightwing commentariat now say Jenrick did at least as well as Kemi this afternoon if not better.

Jenrick is also harder on immigration than Kemi, while pushing building new homes and infrastructure etc
And that is the point

You want a right wing leader when the conservatives need a leader that appeals across the political divide
He's always been a blue Corbynite.

The Conservative Party under various leaders for the past century has sought to attract the vote of liberals and not just conservatives. But HYUFD has made clear he doesn't want liberals like myself, even if we're economically right wing. Or people like you G who may have once voted for Blair in a lifetime of voting conservative.

Well now he's got his wish and the election result he wanted.

You think the Tories lost more weight on its left half than its right half in the last election? Just laughable.

MattW · October 2

Russian forces using drones to attack civilians in Kherson

(200+ reported injuries or deaths).

A segment from Ukraine: the Latest, yesterday:
https://youtu.be/v5rhYKmMLlk?t=67

Taz · October 2

TheScreamingEagles said:

Taz said:

Scott_xP said:
Kemi's job this week was to hide the crazy

Epic fail...
Less than a month ago she was leading with around 45%.

Real crash and burn here.
I remember there was some wise fellow who was warning that Kemi Badenoch was a duffer.

He received a lot of abuse for that but he was proven right.

Well he does like Pineapple on Pizza so does he deserve it !!!!

BartholomewRoberts · October 2

Nigel_Foremain said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:
On Cleverly, this seems a strange statement - as I hear it - that an elderly couple in a 4 or 5 bedroom house are prevented from downsizing by the existence of Stamp Duty.

Have I missed something?

https://youtu.be/MiMGGqB8MbA?t=6569
Yes, many of us have been making this exact same point for years.

Stamp Duty is a wretched tax on mobility.

If you are an elderly couple in a 5 bed house and you stay there until you pass on you don't pay a penny of stamp duty. If you downsize, you do.

Those arguing in favour of stamp duty make the fallacious argument that as there's large sums of money involved at the time of sales it is expedient to have a tax then, but the problem is it is a massive disincentive to mobility and discourages behaviour we should encourage.

Far better to abolish stamp duty and replace with an annual land value tax. A couple that downsizes should be decreasing their tax bill, not getting a hefty one they'd otherwise avoid.
They the Cleverly claim was that they had been stuck there for 35 years, which is bizarre.

(I pretty much agree with you on the abolition, but I'd do it as part of making Council Tax 0.5% of property value, which is different to your LVT but of the same ilk.)
It isn't bizarre. Many people stay in "the family home" for decades with no family living with them. Our tax system positively encourages them to stay there and not to move and will have done so for each of those 35 years.
So you don’t believe in the right to own property and do as you wish with it? Bit Communist.
No I do believe in the right to property ownership.

Quite the opposite, only taxing people when they buy or move is not letting them "do as they wish with it".

Taxes should be flat, low and consistent.

Those who buy this year should pay the same taxes as those who bought 50 years ago.
But what’s are you taking when you apply land value tax to people? You’re taxing quiet enjoyment, presumably for the common good.
Why would you apply land value tax to people? You would apply it to land and whoever owns the land pays the tax.

Whether you like it or not the country has running costs. Defence, law and order etc and whatever else Parliament has decreed.

The country only has a finite amount of land, if you own a portion of this countries land you should pay a portion of the running costs of the country.

That's not communism it's perfectly liberal.

You seem to think "quiet enjoyment" should for some reason be taxed less than other enjoyment. I would rather let people do as they please with what they own.

Land should be taxed the same whether the owner chooses to quietly enjoy it, or chooses to work it, or chooses to build on it, or chooses to sell it and the new owner takes responsibility for paying the costs.

Why are you opposed to letting people do as they will with what they own? The state should not get involved, it should take its cut of funding for the running costs of the country but let the owner do as he, she or they pleases to do with it.
For land with houses on I agree with you - as long as the LVT is replacing Council tax and is broadly neutral in its effects. But for land that is being worked for food, assuming you are going to have the same value per acre for all land, then suddenly pretty much every farm in the country becomes unviable. And what about stuff like the National Parks or National Trust land? I can definitely see the case for habitable land - and land with planning permission to prevent land banking by developers - but land that is being worked to provide is with our food or amenity land for our benefit - cannot be included as it would destroy much of the rural economy.
An LVT should be able to have local land values factored in, which would make rural costs cheaper than residential ones already.

If rural land is productively used it should be able to pay for some of the costs of running the country, but I agree with it being less.

The Treasury could exempt National Trust etc land as appropriate.

If we moved as I desire to a zonal system then you can include this tax within the zonal system by taxing residentially zoned land more - and I would allow anyone who owns rural land to change their own designation if they choose to develop it to residential (while letting other rural people keep theirs if they so desire) but if they change it then they would become liable for paying the taxes as a consequence of their choice.
I think this appears to be how so many people view tax - it is all well and good to levy taxes just so long as you tax something I do not have. In Bart's case he doesn't have land and is jealous of those that do. A large part of the farming community, even those with large landholdings, have marginal incomes. They work hard and spend their time productively. They can only hope that Rachel Thieves does not read Bart's ideas!
I do have land, what makes you think I didn't?

Even though I personally dislike flats I recognise that's a matter of personal taste and accept I should pay more for owning a house than a flat, as that's my choice and I'm OK to pay for my own choices.
No offence, but "having land" normally means more than a front and back garden, and having it on a large mortgage!
You're pretty ignorant then, most tenants would be quite happy with nothing more than house of their own with or without a front and back garden to go with it.

If you have more, then that's your choice and you should pay for your choices just as I do mine.

And as was said at the start of the discussion, my proposal is not a tax hike but revenue neutral so that Stamp Duty should be eliminated so that rather than merely taxing those who are mobile people should pay lower but more consistent taxes.

Making taxes low and consistent is not a bad thing. Taxing mobility is a bad thing.
Well indeed Barty old bean, agree with your last statements, but taxing the farming community because you are jealous of their capital is incredibly dumb and highly simplistic. You have been banging this "through your own prism" drum for a long time. Glad you got on the ladder, well done. Now go and try as work as hard as a farmer does when many of their annual incomes work out to be less than minimum wage

Except that I wasn't proposing taxing the farming community.

Indeed I specifically said I'd be happy to have a zoning system so that farmers weren't being taxed as residential unless a farmer chose to change their land from agricultural zone to residential, which should be their choice but then they'd be liable for the tax as a consequence of their choice.

I am happy for farmers to have the choice what to do with their land, I'm not proposing making their choice for them.

@Richard_Tyndall mistakenly assumed it was a flat acreage charge being discussed but I and everyone else in the discussion immediately said that no the proposal is for land value not flat acreage.

Big_G_NorthWales · October 2

The US announced their aircraft had been involved in supporting Israel last night but Starmer avoided the issue about UK involvement leaving in to the Ministry of Defence to release a statement

Why did he not confirm RAF help for Israel ?

https://x.com/DefenceHQ/status/1841476219415466223?t=pyb74BKp0IVzt3oqqARdBQ&s=19

rcs1000 · October 2

bondegezou said:
FPT...

Andy_JS said:

TheScreamingEagles said:
Well worth a read, and another example of why I am glad I didn't become an MP.

Shhh! My dad was a Tory MP: why I didn’t tell my friends

Growing up, Adam Hart was proud that his father, Simon, had a job that other people were interested in. Then the internet abuse started. At university having the Conservative secretary of state for Wales as a parent was social death

...In June 2016, when I was revising for my GCSEs, the MP Jo Cox was murdered after leaving her constituency surgery. Like everyone else, I had read many news articles about murders, but this one, with its pictures of a fortysomething MP with two kids, felt odd.

At home, the powers-that-be reviewed our “home security”. We failed on account of the public footpath that runs past our front door. Some men fitted a panic button in my parents’ wardrobe as well as a motion-triggered alarm outside the door. The first night the alarm was in operation a badger walked past and set it off, summoning Dyfed-Powys police to our house at 3am. As my sister and I were away, my parents saw the policemen at the door and assumed one of us had died.

https://www.thetimes.com/article/b5a924ff-7014-4a6f-9bf8-5585687d8454
Why have some people started behaving like this in recent years? I don't understand it.
I don't think anyone definitively knows. The Internet has reduced barriers and we have the phenomenon of online disinhibition. People sound off online in a way they wouldn't in person, and it has become much easier for your abuse to reach its target. 50 years ago, people perhaps had the same thoughts, but they didn't have an easy way of expressing them at someone. Maybe most people aren't like that, but those who are gravitate to online environments.

But maybe it's also about a degradation of political discourse, brought about by more partisan media. Then there's the influence of foreign agents, Russia etc. deliberately injecting discord. We now know Russia was funding right-wing commentators to make divisive social media content, down to complaining the latest Star Wars series is "too woke".

The fundamental problem is a simple one.

People don't want to know the truth; they would rather believe things that mesh with their existing prejudices.

And as media organizations are commercial businesses, built to deliver a profit to shareholders, then they will serve their audience the content they want, rather than the truth.

rcs1000 · October 2

Nigel_Foremain said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:
On Cleverly, this seems a strange statement - as I hear it - that an elderly couple in a 4 or 5 bedroom house are prevented from downsizing by the existence of Stamp Duty.

Have I missed something?

https://youtu.be/MiMGGqB8MbA?t=6569
Yes, many of us have been making this exact same point for years.

Stamp Duty is a wretched tax on mobility.

If you are an elderly couple in a 5 bed house and you stay there until you pass on you don't pay a penny of stamp duty. If you downsize, you do.

Those arguing in favour of stamp duty make the fallacious argument that as there's large sums of money involved at the time of sales it is expedient to have a tax then, but the problem is it is a massive disincentive to mobility and discourages behaviour we should encourage.

Far better to abolish stamp duty and replace with an annual land value tax. A couple that downsizes should be decreasing their tax bill, not getting a hefty one they'd otherwise avoid.
They the Cleverly claim was that they had been stuck there for 35 years, which is bizarre.

(I pretty much agree with you on the abolition, but I'd do it as part of making Council Tax 0.5% of property value, which is different to your LVT but of the same ilk.)
It isn't bizarre. Many people stay in "the family home" for decades with no family living with them. Our tax system positively encourages them to stay there and not to move and will have done so for each of those 35 years.
So you don’t believe in the right to own property and do as you wish with it? Bit Communist.
No I do believe in the right to property ownership.

Quite the opposite, only taxing people when they buy or move is not letting them "do as they wish with it".

Taxes should be flat, low and consistent.

Those who buy this year should pay the same taxes as those who bought 50 years ago.
But what’s are you taking when you apply land value tax to people? You’re taxing quiet enjoyment, presumably for the common good.
Why would you apply land value tax to people? You would apply it to land and whoever owns the land pays the tax.

Whether you like it or not the country has running costs. Defence, law and order etc and whatever else Parliament has decreed.

The country only has a finite amount of land, if you own a portion of this countries land you should pay a portion of the running costs of the country.

That's not communism it's perfectly liberal.

You seem to think "quiet enjoyment" should for some reason be taxed less than other enjoyment. I would rather let people do as they please with what they own.

Land should be taxed the same whether the owner chooses to quietly enjoy it, or chooses to work it, or chooses to build on it, or chooses to sell it and the new owner takes responsibility for paying the costs.

Why are you opposed to letting people do as they will with what they own? The state should not get involved, it should take its cut of funding for the running costs of the country but let the owner do as he, she or they pleases to do with it.
For land with houses on I agree with you - as long as the LVT is replacing Council tax and is broadly neutral in its effects. But for land that is being worked for food, assuming you are going to have the same value per acre for all land, then suddenly pretty much every farm in the country becomes unviable. And what about stuff like the National Parks or National Trust land? I can definitely see the case for habitable land - and land with planning permission to prevent land banking by developers - but land that is being worked to provide is with our food or amenity land for our benefit - cannot be included as it would destroy much of the rural economy.
An LVT should be able to have local land values factored in, which would make rural costs cheaper than residential ones already.

If rural land is productively used it should be able to pay for some of the costs of running the country, but I agree with it being less.

The Treasury could exempt National Trust etc land as appropriate.

If we moved as I desire to a zonal system then you can include this tax within the zonal system by taxing residentially zoned land more - and I would allow anyone who owns rural land to change their own designation if they choose to develop it to residential (while letting other rural people keep theirs if they so desire) but if they change it then they would become liable for paying the taxes as a consequence of their choice.
I think this appears to be how so many people view tax - it is all well and good to levy taxes just so long as you tax something I do not have. In Bart's case he doesn't have land and is jealous of those that do. A large part of the farming community, even those with large landholdings, have marginal incomes. They work hard and spend their time productively. They can only hope that Rachel Thieves does not read Bart's ideas!
I do have land, what makes you think I didn't?

Even though I personally dislike flats I recognise that's a matter of personal taste and accept I should pay more for owning a house than a flat, as that's my choice and I'm OK to pay for my own choices.
No offence, but "having land" normally means more than a front and back garden, and having it on a large mortgage!
You're pretty ignorant then, most tenants would be quite happy with nothing more than house of their own with or without a front and back garden to go with it.

If you have more, then that's your choice and you should pay for your choices just as I do mine.

And as was said at the start of the discussion, my proposal is not a tax hike but revenue neutral so that Stamp Duty should be eliminated so that rather than merely taxing those who are mobile people should pay lower but more consistent taxes.

Making taxes low and consistent is not a bad thing. Taxing mobility is a bad thing.
Well indeed Barty old bean, agree with your last statements, but taxing the farming community because you are jealous of their capital is incredibly dumb and highly simplistic. You have been banging this "through your own prism" drum for a long time. Glad you got on the ladder, well done. Now go and try as work as hard as a farmer does when many of their annual incomes work out to be less than minimum wage

Economics is the study of the efficient allocation of scarce resources. Wouldn't it be more efficient, and generally increase the sum total of happiness, if those farms were housing instead?

No_Offence_Alan · October 2

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:
On Cleverly, this seems a strange statement - as I hear it - that an elderly couple in a 4 or 5 bedroom house are prevented from downsizing by the existence of Stamp Duty.

Have I missed something?

https://youtu.be/MiMGGqB8MbA?t=6569
Yes, many of us have been making this exact same point for years.

Stamp Duty is a wretched tax on mobility.

If you are an elderly couple in a 5 bed house and you stay there until you pass on you don't pay a penny of stamp duty. If you downsize, you do.

Those arguing in favour of stamp duty make the fallacious argument that as there's large sums of money involved at the time of sales it is expedient to have a tax then, but the problem is it is a massive disincentive to mobility and discourages behaviour we should encourage.

Far better to abolish stamp duty and replace with an annual land value tax. A couple that downsizes should be decreasing their tax bill, not getting a hefty one they'd otherwise avoid.
They the Cleverly claim was that they had been stuck there for 35 years, which is bizarre.

(I pretty much agree with you on the abolition, but I'd do it as part of making Council Tax 0.5% of property value, which is different to your LVT but of the same ilk.)
It isn't bizarre. Many people stay in "the family home" for decades with no family living with them. Our tax system positively encourages them to stay there and not to move and will have done so for each of those 35 years.
So you don’t believe in the right to own property and do as you wish with it? Bit Communist.
No I do believe in the right to property ownership.

Quite the opposite, only taxing people when they buy or move is not letting them "do as they wish with it".

Taxes should be flat, low and consistent.

Those who buy this year should pay the same taxes as those who bought 50 years ago.
But what’s are you taking when you apply land value tax to people? You’re taxing quiet enjoyment, presumably for the common good.
Why would you apply land value tax to people? You would apply it to land and whoever owns the land pays the tax.

Whether you like it or not the country has running costs. Defence, law and order etc and whatever else Parliament has decreed.

The country only has a finite amount of land, if you own a portion of this countries land you should pay a portion of the running costs of the country.

That's not communism it's perfectly liberal.

You seem to think "quiet enjoyment" should for some reason be taxed less than other enjoyment. I would rather let people do as they please with what they own.

Land should be taxed the same whether the owner chooses to quietly enjoy it, or chooses to work it, or chooses to build on it, or chooses to sell it and the new owner takes responsibility for paying the costs.

Why are you opposed to letting people do as they will with what they own? The state should not get involved, it should take its cut of funding for the running costs of the country but let the owner do as he, she or they pleases to do with it.
For land with houses on I agree with you - as long as the LVT is replacing Council tax and is broadly neutral in its effects. But for land that is being worked for food, assuming you are going to have the same value per acre for all land, then suddenly pretty much every farm in the country becomes unviable. And what about stuff like the National Parks or National Trust land? I can definitely see the case for habitable land - and land with planning permission to prevent land banking by developers - but land that is being worked to provide is with our food or amenity land for our benefit - cannot be included as it would destroy much of the rural economy.

The clue is in LVT - Land VALUE Tax - the same % rate would be applied to the value of the land.

algarkirk · October 2

numbertwelve said:
For what it’s worth, I do think the Tories could win from the right; or at least build a voter coalition on the right that puts them in contention.

But - I am not convinced that the person to do that is either Robert Jenrick or Kemi Badenoch. Jenrick is a bit slimy and unlikeable. Badenoch isn’t disciplined enough in her messaging.

For anyone to win from the right will entail them explaining to the weary voter what are the non-trivial differences between 'the right' and everyone else.

'Right' is capable of embracing: mass migration, zero migration, gigantic welfarism, defence cuts, cultural barbarism, cultural elitism, building houses everywhere, protecting heritage everywhere, equality of opportunity, inequality of opportunity, Oxford for toffs, Oxford for chavs, protectionism, free trade....

The govern is to choose.

Big_G_NorthWales · October 2

Sky

Lord Alli under investigation for non registration of interests

https://news.sky.com/story/politics-latest-tory-conference-leadership-jenrick-badenoch-cleverly-tugendhat-12593360?postid=8371969#liveblog-body

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Categories

After the beauty parade punters make Cleverly the coming man – politicalbetting.com

Comments